>>11998489What you mean is sarcastic. This board seems to have serious trouble understanding the distinction.
>>11998456You cease to exist. There's no after. I mean, we can quote Occam's Razor or not, doesn't matter. Even if we don't know everything, we know so much already about the reality of the cosmos, and every year we learn more. Like we have learned, for thousands of years now.
And every single time we learn something new, it makes whatever dualistic nonsense you might have believed in smaller, and smaller, and always more unlikely. We can draw a line on a graph and see where it's going clear enough. There is no spiritual, religious nonsense at all to reality. We have no soul, our consciousness is just an emergent property of our intellect exposed to external stimulus over a long period of time. There is no afterlife. Once you're done, you're done. Period.
>>11998488This nonsense aside, we can assume simply from the fact that we exist (and how mathematically extremely unlikely it is that we should, given all physical properties and laws of our universe must be more or less random), that reality is cyclic, or infinite in nature. We must exist in some form of a multiverse, in which, or next to which, an infinite number of universes have always, and will always spawn. In this sense, one with the same properties as our current universe, with a planet much like earth, with a species much like humans will have come before, and will come after. That said, this is not a rebirth in any sense. If someone who looks like you and lives a life almost like you should come an infinity into the future, you will have no sense of continuity at all.
Point being: For literally all sense and purposes, this is your one, unique, chance at life. There will not be another. Not for "you". That we know with almost absolute certainty. So make it count. Or don't. Your choice.
