Will time and space matter in the other world??

[NikolaiI]

Never seen it. More sort-of like what Prot did in K-PAX. It was this movie about PROT, who said he was from another planet, whom they put in a psychiatric ward- anyway, at the end of the movie came the date he said he would leave on, and he went catatonic. He told them he would leave on a beam of light. Loved that movie so much.

[Gadget Girl]

I never seen that either. But it gives us the same idea anyways. Richard Collier was determined to to go back because he wanted to find the old woman which he saw in one of his plays. So he found a way how to do that. He recited the precise date and time and he was back.

[NikolaiI]

Ah interesting. Well, yeah, you and I will probably be the first ones to ever do it in real life, then! If it doesn't kill us.

[Gadget Girl]

hope not.

[brainstrain]

Assuming that there's gonna be a hereafter, most likely not. At least not in the sense we know it. In reality, eternity is an imaginary thing (try proving that something will never end =P) so if we really are 'eternal' in heaven than it would have to be a place not governed by the same laws as earth.

[baddad]

So, you are starting off with the assumption that there is actually an "other world"?

.........what Scher said..............

I am personally of a mind to live this life I currently have as if there is no other on offer. And......not to pick a fight or attack anyone's beliefs, but heaven and hell fall into the realm of superstition in my opinion. Spirituality is real, a way to view and act within our current existence. Religion/purported rewards in some other world..................well...........a fun way to exercise the intellect, an interesting academic exercise perhaps...................but I think the only "other world (s)" are within our own minds. Am I off topic?? Not that unusual for me I suppose..........................

[Midas]

First let me say that my comments here are for those with an 'open' mind. If you are devoutly religious then it would be a contradiction of terms to be also 'open minded'. All the main religions from what I have studied have strict doctrines that require one accepts certain dogmas, without question, which cover this area.

I am not 'getting at' people who belong to some devout religion, to me, the beauty of life is that who, or whatever, created us, gave us 'free will' (or did He/She/It? Some may argue this, and I feel they well may, here.)

We all know that no one living has the answers. (no Nicholai, not even I) However, it has long been an interesting subject to which most of us, at some point in life, have, or will, give some thought.

To me, words like 'heaven', and 'hell' are merely, the English words which have come to us from religion and they relate to 'conditions' rather than places. Everything that exists to us, exists only in our mind. It is personal to us in its form. The 'picture' and I do not mean just outward visual, but the 'inward eye' visual, comes from how our mind interprets the vibrations received via the senses.

It is a bit like a TV receives a transmitted series of vibrations and creates a picture. If we checked a number of TV sets in a room all tuned to the same station the actual quality of reproduced reception would vary even if only slightly. This would apply even though we used the same make of TV unit. But add to that different TV sets, and even different people viewing those sets.

Now in that same room if we switched off those sets, we switch off the 'pictures' to us, but they are still in the same room - passing through walls and other obstructions to get there and pass on. So they are there with us, though we can't see them - as also is electricity.We did not invent electricity, we only discovered how to use it, and create it artificially.

I believe that we are 'minds' with a body, not bodies with a mind. By that I mean the really important part that is us, is our mind. I could put forward a good argument to support this if I am challenged but will not waste time now. We cannot see a 'mind'. We can see the 'equipment' in our body that allows 'mind' to exist. And, according to Descartes, allows us to exist -'Cogito ergo sum'.

All I have done here is to provide a few seeds from which anyone interested (if not, that's OK) to propagate (enlarge upon) in some quiet moment, and there is nothing good on TV or you have got tired playing with a computer game, or texting on your Ipod. I believe it is in this area that could well provide a link to the answer.

Remember, an open book is useless without an open mind. And an open mind does not mean we can't finely focus it when required. Most of us have minds like drunken monkeys - jumping around all over the place. Don't believe? Just think of how many thoughts you have flitted to in even the last hour. And yet, you know darn well there is something that you should get done, and all it would take is for your mind to centre on it long enough and it would be done, and you would do a first class job that would make someone happy - if only yourself.

Actually, Nicholai you are not that far 'off beam' (forgive the pun) in some of your posts here - particularly #3. After all 'light' whether in a beam or not - in fact a beam is only vibrations of light focused. That 'light' on the TV set comes from a 'beam' which is actually invisible to the naked eye while it is on its way.

We can also see and hear someone in that room 'live' from the other side of the world. They have been transported 'artificially' by us along 'beams'. And from what I have seen, so far, whatever we have created from our minds - our inventions, can also exist, even if only by function, in nature as in electricity which existed before humans, and transport ('legs', and horses to ride, as a function to permit travel). And those are just examples.

I have experienced far too many times that I have been able to transport my thoughts to others. But I am not unique (well not in this ability -smile) We can all do it. I believe it requires only 'belief' and relaxed, but focused thought. (absolute belief, that means without any question, is the real essential) I also believe when we were 'primitive' we did these things as a matter of course as in 'survival', and communication.

I believe animals can still do it, and this has been seen in many studies. How we use any of our abilities, in which they are stronger in some than in others, comes from how we have applied to them importance in our lives.

In the rest of the animal kingdom the focus is one of survival, and procreation of the species - very basic. That was our way once, and, I believe, is still basic to us now behind all the added sophistication we have accrued, if we are honest.

You will have noted what may seem an over use of the word 'believe' or its noun form, 'belief'. No apologies, it's the root of most achievment - believe me!

[amanda_isabel]

there probably does not exist time and space in the other wolr d-or what supposition there is of it, since time and space are providers of limits and the other world has no limits...

[oracle13]

I find it odd that so many people answer this question without stopping to even question what they're actually answering.

I have many religious friends who take great comfort in having their Church as an answer to some of the problems with existence. But I find it quite odd when people take the teachings of their particular religions and feel that they can apply some kind of empirical, scientific reasoning towards them.

Religious belief is, as Campbell has said, mythology taken out of context, in my opinion. I never really understand why people answer questions like this as if there is actually a 'right' answer, when really that's like saying, is Hades really guarded by a three headed dog?

If its real to you, then fair enough, but I don't see how you can apply a belief in something non-empirical to some kind of scientific conjecture...

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I find it odd that so many people answer this question without stopping to even question what they're actually answering.

I have many religious friends who take great comfort in having their Church as an answer to some of the problems with existence. But I find it quite odd when people take the teachings of their particular religions and feel that they can apply some kind of empirical, scientific reasoning towards them.

Religious belief is, as Campbell has said, mythology taken out of context, in my opinion. I never really understand why people answer questions like this as if there is actually a 'right' answer, when really that's like saying, is Hades really guarded by a three headed dog?

If its real to you, then fair enough, but I don't see how you can apply a belief in something non-empirical to some kind of scientific conjecture...

Quoted for truth. Asking whether a question has a reasonable answer in the first place is obviously the right course of action, especially when the answer is not immediate. Reading up on the background of the question is probably a better idea than speculating on its solution.

That being said, time and space are terms that describe physical phenomena, which obviously have no logical place in a location, as it were, such as heaven or hell. This is another awkward example of imposing terms and conditions into a context that cannot possibly be understood in the first place.

[Midas]

In response to the last two posts, which make a valid point - up to a point,
lets deviate for a minute from addressing the actual question posed by the thread, to the question itself in what is it really asking, and what other questions does it pose.

First, however, let me say, in deference to the originator of any thread on this, and most online forums: These web sites reach all over the world. Many who contribute do not have English as their first language, and many, consequently are struggling with it, but they are trying. Some are doing a darn good job.

Also, the internet is not owned by any particular nation, so all are equal
( and no crack about 'but some more equal than others') but many forget this

Then we have age. Many here are still at school, and in various grades.

Therefore tolerance must be shown for the different levels at which people are communicating.

Sometimes it is difficult to make clear in a few words, unless you are highly skilled, exactly the answer you are seeking. As a result, people do not always
interpret the question the same way as others.

Then, as has been mentioned, the question often poses other questions that need to be addressed in order to answer the main question, as the question may assume some point as an understood, and accepted, fact.

The question, this thread states: 'Will time and space matter in the other world?'

This question then assumes two main points (1) that everyone's concept of time and space incuding its relevance to us is the same. (2) (a) that everyone understands what is meant by 'other world', and (b) that there is another existence and a suggested 'heaven and earth' are also understood, and accepted by everyone.

So, is it any wonder, from just that alone (there are other considerations) that we get what may appear to some, because it leaves their track of thought, responses straying from the thread.

Then we get responses to responses which may take us, what may appear to some, further away.

Therefore, unless the originator, not anyone else assuming how they see it is the right one, of a thread enters the discussion and makes it perfectly clear the confines, as in perimeters, of the question have been breached whenever it is felt that a response has strayed outside the context, then let us evaluate, and appreciate, all contributions on their own particular merit.

[mazHur]

i take your point, Midas, but the point is that even if someone doesn't believe in the 'other world' or has a different concept of 'time and space' I would personally feel he has equal right to express his thoughts. if the thread starter begins commenting in the middle of everything it will only lead to an unnecessary debate and arguments will not serve the intent of the thread. So, let everybody share the thread and have his say. The super moderator is here and can take care of any offensive or personal remarks that it feels off topic or objectionable. I hope you will appreciate my point and not urge the thread starters to 'pop' in every time somebody comes up with his thoughts
thanks
mazHur

[Midas]

Mazur, thank you for your comment, but you appear to have misunderstood me. That is not quite what I said (or meant). In fact, it was contrary.

Using this particular thread as an example. I clearly state that the way the question is phrased, and even this type of question, calls for responses addressing the points which they feel need to be addressed in order to begin to get to the core of what the questioner may appear to be posing.

Also, as has also been mentioned, there can be no definitive answer to such a question no matter which part of it, or all, one does, or does not accept.

Because of this, by its nature, it can stir flights of fancy, especially in those with great imaginations whose answers, sparked by the question, are interesting, and thought provoking, in themselves.

I assumed, obviously wrongly, that I had made the point that it was only in threads posing discussion where it has been made perfectly clear where the
thread was centred, and that any question had some semblance of being answerable by sound, supported, argument, where the thread originator may
keep people 'on track'. ( This has nothing to do with infringements of the code of ethics where the moderator would intervene.)

An example here using parts of the thread theme. Do you believe in the concept of an after life.?(you could add) If so why? if not, why not?

Here, you are not assuming there is one, but asking if anyone believes there is one. That could even be answered by a simple 'Yes' or 'No' , but by asking
for a support of their stance, you elicit what can be interesting discussion on not so much whether there is, or isn't but on the points of view as to why people think what they do.

The point I was making in my post was that there may be, as far as that part
of us which is the real 'us' our mind, or spirit, a continuous existence in that we are merely parts of a whole - an all pervading Universal Intelligence, that for a period of time use a physical body in which to act and react to collect through experience further knowledge to supply the whole.

Now that is extremely simplified. I did give some analogy to support the thoughts. I was not attempting a thesis, merely sowing seeds for thought.

If I had time, and the inclination, and I thought there were sufficient similar like minds, I could explain more, but I am aware of the limitations here and decided otherwise.

I am also still open to interesting observations, and hoped that I might spark
some imaginative response that could add to my own thoughts on the matter.

If not, what have I lost. When we put something down in writing we reinforce our own thoughts, and open them to self question, so here there is always some gain.
Thanks again for your comment, giving me an opportunity to explain further.

[mazHur]

Thanks, Midas. I appreciate your clarification.

In fact, the question posed in the thread is not that simple for it has its roots in philosophy, metaphysics, religion as well as science. As to whether there is an afterlife, I can only say there is no definite answer to this question as no one has yet returned from the 'other' world to tell us about it. Thus all that we know is from the study of different subjects or perhaps, in case of atheists, a mere stretch of imagination. Arguing on this aspect of 'other life' would thus only split the original question and the discussion here will get lost in vagueness and off topic. Let us assume there is or there isn't an other world and where does the question of time and space rest. In case of those who believe there is no other world it is more important for them to substantiate their statements with justification as to where they ( or other creations) would 'go' after death? They ought to relate it to matter and the fate of the existing time and space. I mean to say that if we think time and space is present then where will it lead us after we are more in this world> Whether the world will end or will it continue after death? In both cases how would time and space relate to both conditions, viz life and death as well as after death.

best


here again..........

here is yet another view of time and space ,,,,,hope it will provide some insight into the phenomena in the other world !

http://billychasen.com/clock/

[NikolaiI]

Haha, thanks, Midas, and you likewise seem to have some good thoughts on the matter. What I mentioned is something that relates to other ideas I have thought of, or phenomena I have come to believe in, that I've discovered in studies of myself, reality, and the farthest reaches of my nature. Every person has their own reality; yet it seems apparent there is a common reality we all share. If this can't be proved, at least it seems apparent. Now, I believe that reality itself can be bended, at least very slightly. I've seen this particularly in my quest for enlightenment. Some words from the Buddha were very helpful in understanding all this. I'll just quote it in two places. The firs two lines of the dhammapada are
"The mind is the forerunner of actions,
All deeds are led by mind, created by mind."
And later:
"As rain does never penetrate
a house that is well-thatched,
so lust does never penetrate
the mind well cultivated."
Other translations call it "developed mind." I've found that this is true. When the mind is enlightened, the mind is transformed, then it is protected from negative and harmful thoughts or karma. There's something you can actually feel when you do some kind of practice towards this; you can feel your mind becoming transformed. I can't exactly explain why I believe reality can be transformed, but it's very related to this. When one enlightens oneself like this; one is able to see that reality itself can be changed, possibly only by the mind. I don't understand everything that goes on in this process, but one's mind being transformed- the mind is part of reality, true?

The other thing that I was thinking about was more fanciful. Since we are the result of stimuli and conditioning and our environment; it seems like we should be able to transcend time. I mean, perhaps I am giving too much power to the imagination; but since we can imagine ourselves at the end of time, at the end of our lives, looking back, it seems like at least something should be possible because of this. Could we not send a message to the future? Could we not say- "We have attained enlightenment! By these words, and this canon, we're dancing around at the farthest reaches of our nature- and we are happy! We pass on this knowledge, for the purpose of sharing the knowledge of living and happiness." Is there not a link between present and future? The past is fixed- so they say- but could not the past be not fixed? The present now is the past to the future, and the present is changeable, and so the past is changeable. It's not so much that we can jump on a light beam and travel across the universe; it's that we can simulate this by the our incredible experiences and our knowledge of how the world works- our knowledge of how ourselves work, and how we are created by our environment and stimuli. Why is not the present moment a key, a turning point in history? If the past has been filled with darkness; the entire past, wouldn't it be balanced, to have the future filled with a little more light? Don't we mistrust our writers and our teachers from the past, isn't it all tinged with the unknown, and don't we have the healthy and well-placed mistrust that in that unknown exists darkness- I mean hatred and ignorance? The present is the turning point- the link to infinity, the link to transcendence.

So if we can't travel in time with our mind, we can at least record our existence and then give an entreaty to future generations to give us something back. Pray for us! Just live simply- and always stretch the boundaries. If we can't travel across the universe on a beam of light, then we can at least purify our minds and become enlightened. We unravel reality- rather, we just realize that everything that comes into existence will cease to exist; and put ourselves outside of that- and seek our own interpretations of reality.

Now, finally- I believe that reality can be changed- at least one's own reality, their own mind- and through that the rest of their lives; and how much more so with more than one person? So this is not necessarily the otherworldly; but it also seems to be that anyone, at any time, could die. They could also dissolve into insanity, or enlightenment?
Thanks for your thoughts on this...