The deep end

[DarkLight 0]

Life's pure luck. Everything on earth lives cuz it was soooo damn lucky that evolution "made" it...

Life doesn't have a purpose if you ask me...

[DarkLight 0]

Notice the sentence in my signature: "~Life sux, and then you die~"

[morbid 0]

Hmm....yes, I also hold the opinion that life occured pretty much by pure chance.

Perhaps a better question would have been "What is the goal of a living organism?". Since although they have no purpose living creatures still have a goal, whether it be an intentional thought out goal (such as by a human) or a goal built in by evolution (the continuation of the species).

[Bosun 0]

"In our soul everything moves, guided by a mysterious hand

understandable, not speaking,

we know nothing of our own souls.

The deepest words of the wise men teach us the same as the whistle of the wind when it blows,

or the sound of water when it flows..." -A. Machadi

nordin dk....you don't reallly believe that..what you spoke of computers bringing us answers....do you.

[Heckler 0]

My goal is to discover if I surround myself with the objects I see everyday in advertisements whether I can somehow attain the lifestyle and happiness everyone seems to have in said adverts. I haven't got there once though I did come close once to having a mystical experience while eating my second bowl of Kellogs crunchy nut corn flakes...

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bosun @ May 07 2002,19:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"In our soul everything moves, guided by a mysterious hand

understandable, not speaking,

we know nothing of our own souls.

The deepest words of the wise men teach us the same as the whistle of the wind when it blows,

or the sound of water when it flows..."    -A. Machadi

nordin dk....you don't reallly believe that..what you spoke of computers bringing us answers....do you.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't speak of my beliefs yet, I am just thinking out loud.

But, computers will have enduring effect on the development of man, of that I am certain. Did you know that devices are commercially available that allow you to control simple computerprograms with your mind?

Since only a few of the many thousands of different species of animal die shortly after reproducing, I don't think we can generalize and call this typical behaviour for living organisms.

What is typical is reproducing and evolving, and these two things go hand in hand, or so they have traditionally. With cloning (reproducing without evolving), and cybernetics (evolving without reproducing) they have become seperate entities.

Cloning in it's outmost consequence, is therefore hazardous to any species submitted to it, if you believe evolution is good that is.

more later...

[advocatexxx 0]

"All that you see or seem is but a dream within a dream" - Edgar Allan Poe

After reading numerous philosophy and science books, I soon realized that things are not always what they seem. That the concealed, mysterious world of the quantum universe is so strange, that our very perception about its nature and purpose is turned upside down. It is my strong opinion that we - humans have not yet evolved to a point where we would be able to comprehend the answer to this question, if indeed there is one.

To quote some great words on this subject:

"...if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why is it that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." - Stephen Hawking

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Tex - and Tovarish are there.

1. Life has no meaning inherent to it. We can 'assign' meaning to it in order to give some sense of coherence to our lives,

But all we are ever doing is giving a false sense of 'order' to a structured chaos.

There is no God. (unproveable due to the nebulous nature of 'God'

Certainly not in the most commonly understood sense of the word.

There is no Jewish God ,Muslim God or any other 'traditional' (and i might add , regional ) God . This is almost (beyond reasonable doubt) certain.

Why so many people persist in pursuing these Middle Eastern(and many other) mythologies and traditions ,certainly has nothing to do with some great and profound knowledge that they possess and that i do not.(though they may fool themselves otherwise)

Rather this giant leap of faith is to a large extent the result of some vain and vague hopes and a general unwillingness to examine ones situation in a logical and rational way (unencumbered by tradition).

So this leaves simple observation-one of the basics of science

(Unless you regard empirical analysis and scientific methodology themselves as some sort of new age Gods-

which they are at least in that our senses must be 'trusted'. Certainly though they are superior to ancient mythologies. )

What do i KNOW?

that we exist?

No the existence of others can only be presumed.

THAT I EXIST.

this is a self evident and absolute truth.

(i being -me of the thought as opposed to body)

i can presume that my body exists much as i can presume that other people exist

WHY DO I EXIST?

As i sit here this is not self evident.

It can no more be proved than 'God'(the nebulous) disproved

Indeed i believe the question itself is loaded. It presumes there must be an answer.

There are an infinite number of answers. To presume there is a singular definative answer- one single answer- is folly.

There need be no such thing.

I exist 'because of' (ie the 'cause' if such a thing can be found) the infinity of (to all intents) ever existing -event demarcated-, time and matter that have surrounded me.

Greater precision would still yield no single answer.

There is an an infinitely complex weave of 'interconnectivity' running between time and space and any given 'portion' of time and space that cannot be unweaved.

(including untraceably complicated chains of cause and effect)

Anything can be found in the darkness of the shadow of this absurdly overabundant (and incomrehensible) expanse, including God.

Our lives are the merest of brief glimpses through the tangled weave.

...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

Now im tired so ill rest for a bit...

[advocatexxx 0]

In addition, I think without life, there would be nothing. In principle, we are the observers.  Our eyes absorb photons that have travelled for billions of year from far-away Quasars, from a time when our cosmos was but an infant.  We are here, and we are aware of it.  We are the conscious beings not because we can calculate mathematical equations, or because we can invent a hair loss medicine.  We are conscious because we are aware of our surrounding environment, because we are able to recognize ourselves as individuals.  I won't start a discussion as to what criteria need to be met in order for a lifeform to be considered conscious.  That's a whole new topic.

The point I'm attempting to make, is, would the universe and everything in it still exist if there were no conscious beings here to observe it ?  To acknowledge its presence ?

I see a tree, I know it's there.  I can see it, I can touch it, I can kick it and hear the sound of my foot impacting its wooden skin.  I acknowledge its presence and thus, I conclude that the tree is physically there.  I don't realize however that all such impulses are but bio-electrical signals being sent to my brain, where neurons travel among the pathways and record the appropriate facts within my short term memory.

Though what if there were no conscious beings ?  What if, during the entire life cycle of our cosmos, not one conscious being would evolve to acknowledge the presence of stars, mountains, oceans and such and such.  What if our entire cosmos would explode starting with the Big Bang, and then compress back together in the Big Crunch.  Each and every time this process would loop, and loop, and not anywhere along its timeline would one single conscious being evolve.

Would such a universe even exist ?  You would normally say "of course it would", but how can you be certain of that if not one observance of its presence has been made ?

What if, in another dimension, which is completely disconnected to ours by all means, there would be a planet.  Nevermind where it came from, or how it evolved, it would just be there.  An empty, dead desert planet in a universe full of nothingness. This plante would have no atmosphere, no climate, no changes at all. It wouldn't spin, or orbit anything.  Would such a planet even exist ?  Furthermore, would time flow in such a place ?  Since there would be no clear beginning or end, or any outside interruption whatsoever ?

Perhaps life has a purpose.  We evolved from the primitive single-cell organisms that spawned on this planet 4.6 billion years ago.  We are now conscious beings, and acknowledge our presence, our history, and our own being here.  It is us who, by observing, cause the superposition of states to collapse into reality.  

There's an old saying that goes "If a tree fall down, but there's no one around to hear it, will it make a sound ?"

Then again, it could be simply that we seek an answer to something that wasn't meant to be questioned in the first place. We are used to "right" and "left", "plus" and "minus", "male" and "female", so it's natural we feel that each and every "question" must have an "answer". Perhaps that where are logic is flawed. Think of the anthropic principle which states:

Things are the way they are because, if they were any other way, we wouldn't be here.

Life is there because it is. If it weren't we wouldn't be here today discussing the possible answers to its nature.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Advocate-Yes. A common philosophical question.

Does an object going unobserved, actually exist?

I have had a few discussions on this topic before, and im willing to (fall into the trap and) say yes.

Of course i cannot prove it.  

if i observed the object, it would no longer be an unobserved object.

But when you do not see your wife, of the moon or your pet Hamster, does it cease to exist?

(though admittedly this is somewhat different from unexperienced universes)

My instinct is to say no, and that being the case i feel inclined to apply the same response to completly unobserved universes.

However this of course may call into question the precise meaning of the word 'exist'.

What is it for a thing to 'exist'?

(But im going to duck answering that right now)

I fail to see why an object must be observed in order for it to exist (much as this might run counter to my pro-empiricist stance earlier)

But this does not mean that it is necessarily right to presume that anything that CAN exist (such as a God) DOES exist (unseen)

The question of likelyhood should enter the equation.

How >likely< (based on relevant 'facts' ) is said object to exist

beyond observation?

(i have no idea how this could be calculated with any degree of accuracy though)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

This topic should become sticky

(and replace something useless like The Story thread )

[advocatexxx 0]

Does an object going unobserved, actually exist?

I have had a few discussions on this topic before, and im willing to (fall into the trap and) say yes.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But when you do not see your wife, of the moon or your pet Hamster, does it cease to exist?

<span id='postcolor'>

That's not exactly what I had described in my earlier argument. Your wife is a conscious being (or so I hope), she is therefore capable of perceiving reality on her own. The moon however is a dead body, a ton of matter held together by its own gravity. The moon is there, and we know it, because we have observed it.

An object doesn't cease to exist because it is no longer in your sight. You could say "Was the Earth here before we evolved ?". I believe that once an object has been observed, it becomes "real", and continues its life until it either dies, burns, disintegrates, or whatever else may cause a disruption in its existence.

I'm unsure as to whether you're familiar with the "Schrodinger's Cat", but it is, basically the foundation of quantum mechanics.

The experiment places a living cat in a secured box - a vault so to speak. Inside the box is a mechanism which consists of a radioactive substance, which has exactly 50% chance of decaying within 1 minute. A Geiger counter, which will detect the decaying particle (if it indeed decays), and a hammer mechanism, which activates if the substance decays. If the hammer is activated it will break open a cyanide capsule, thus killing the cat.

The cat is now placed inside the box and secured, so that there is no visual, audio or any other way of knowing the outcome of the experiment. We now wait 1 minute.

At the end of the minute, there is exactly 50/50 chance that we may find the cat both dead or alive. If the substance has decayed, it has triggered the hammer and the cat poisoned on cyanide. If, however, the substance has not decayed, then our kitty should be fine and well.

The argument goes that at the end of that minute, the cat is neither dead or alive - it is both. Something referred to as "superposition of states". A conscious being needs to observe the cat in order for it to collapse into reality.

This argument is really broad, but it states the idea quite well.

You earlier said:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have had a few discussions on this topic before, and im willing to (fall into the trap and) say yes.<span id='postcolor'>

There is a flaw in your statement though. If you cannot observe it, how can you know that it's there ? You may assume, predict, estimate, guess, but you cannot know if something exists unless you observe it.

If there was a golden Rolex watch orbiting the Earth at an altitude of 320 kilometers eversince the Earth was formed, but no one - ever - detected it, saw it, or observed it directly, then would that rolex watch have even existed in the first place ? Your instinct is to say "of course", but that is only due to the fact that I have already described the watch to you and its position as well. If I had never mentioned anything about this watch, you would never have said that. Of course, another issue faced is: does it make a difference ? Well, it may not when you're talking about a watch, but a whole planet where an intelligent civilization may flourish some day ?

The cosmos as a whole exists because of life. Because there are conscious entities there to observe it, to experience it, to acknowledge its presence. If no conscious being - ever - during the entire lifespan of such a cosmos evolves and realizes its presence, then such a universe would not have existed in the first place.

This is where Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle comes into play. The infamous statement (not sure if this is the exact phrasing):

"No system or body may be observed without a direct interaction".

Which is very true, as you have to look at it from a quantum point of view. You may be observing the girl next door get undressed. You look through your binoculars and think "she can't see me". You're right, she probably can't, but you are still interacting with her. Photons of light reflecting off your eyes and face are hitting her body, while in return photons of light reflecting off her are absorbed by your eyes. There is an exchange of energy.

Uncertaintity principle was initially formed when trying to precisely measure both, the position and the angular momentum of an electron. For various reasons, including me being tired of typing, I won't go into that in detail.

Though the connection I'm making here is that us - as humans - merely by existing at one point in time automatically interact not just with chairs, people and cars, but with the cosmos as a whole. As conscious entities we cause the superposition of states to collapse into reality, and thus set the whole thing in motion.

In the end however, all the hours, hell days we spend on arguments like these may not matter. For when we die, we may very well cease to exist - forever. Despite to what the holy stories hold, it may very well be that death is just like that night when you got so badly drunk - so badly that the next morning you couldn't remember what happened, even though your friends told you all about it and all the things you said.

Death may be like that night you can't remember, only this time you will not wake up - for eternity.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Advocatexxx-Thank you for a thorough reply ( to a rather rushed post)

though i think much of what you discuss was adressed briefly in my post

yes i am aware of "Schrodinger's Cat" although the name would probably have escaped me

i will address a few of the points in your post in a fairly random manner:

"Your wife is a conscious being (or so I hope), she is therefore capable of perceiving reality on her own."

this is an assumption not an absolutely certifiable truth .(as preposterous as it sounds)

Our wives may appear upon examination and questioning to be sentient (in the same way that i am) but this cannot be taken as absolute proof.

All percieved reality must be suspect.

The existence of my wife (if i had one ) as a sentient being would be apparent but not necessarily actual, there would be more than one method of explaining her apparent sentient appearance

(including the calling into question of the whole nature of apparent physical reality)

Also to what extent does the Hamster percieve the moon or an otherwise unseen object?

Is the hamster 'conscious'?

Or a monkey? is a monkey sufficient to 'collapse' an object 'into reality'?

What if the hamster was a 'witness' in Schrodinger's box, (with a gas mask for arguments sake )

would it be 'aware' that the cat was dead?

would the cats state be recorded in a Hamster Sub(human)reality

do all living creatures have 'reality' subsets

or is there only one.

"An object doesn't cease to exist because it is no longer in your sight."

So almost everyone presumes, but of course there is no absolute proof for this-

It is an assumption.

"I believe that once an object has been observed, it becomes "real", and continues its life until it either dies, burns, disintegrates, or whatever else may cause a disruption in its existence."

This seems contrary to basic logic unless you can redefine the words 'real' and 'observe' in a novel sense.

Where do these objects spring from the moment they are observed?

can something exist without being 'real' ?

In what sense do you use the word 'real'?

Next:

"There is a flaw in your statement though. If you cannot observe it, how can you know that it's there ? You may assume, predict, estimate, guess, but you cannot know if something exists unless you observe it."

Yes i was aware of this flaw.(which is really the centrepoint of the whole question-and the thing which defines its nature as a Philosophical question)

As i said briefly:

"Of course i cannot prove it.

if i observed the object, it would no longer be an unobserved object."

Hinting that proof of the unobserved object is impossible

Ad-xxx: "The cosmos as a whole exists because of life. Because there are conscious entities there to observe it, to experience it, to acknowledge its presence. If no conscious being - ever - during the entire lifespan of such a cosmos evolves and realizes its presence, then such a universe would not have existed in the first place."

I do not believe this,

unless you are using another definition of the word 'exist'.

Of course it exists in no quantifiable way,

and so could be said to exist outside of conventional science-

thus it constitutes a kind of faith.

I believe in things i cant see.

Furthermore i believe in things that will never be seen (or imagined).

(not God )

"In the end however, all the hours, hell days we spend on arguments like these may not matter. For when we die, we may very well cease to exist - forever. Despite to what the holy stories hold, it may very well be that death is just like that night when you got so badly drunk - so badly that the next morning you couldn't remember what happened, even though your friends told you all about it and all the things you said.

Death may be like that night you can't remember, only this time you will not wake up - for eternity."

/\/\/\/\

Unfortunately true.

And my ultimate fear.

(probably most peoples ,deep down- ie if they stop to think about it)

"Death may be like that night you can't remember, only this time you will not wake up - for eternity."

/\ /\ /\

For hhat is such a state but hell itself?

(for me anyway)

I have a nightmare.

And that nightmare is nothing.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

anyway its been fun-

but i gotta go

for now

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 07 2002,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">advocatexxx:  "The cosmos as a whole exists because of life.  Because there are conscious entities there to observe it, to experience it, to acknowledge its presence.  If no conscious being - ever - during the entire lifespan of such a cosmos evolves and realizes its presence, then such a universe would not have existed in the first place."<span id='postcolor'>

I do not believe this<span id='postcolor'>

You have to enable your mind to rise to a higher state of perception. Your assessment is quite possibly in the likes of "...well just because I can't see it doesn't mean it's not there".

You believe in things unseen, unheard, unthought of.

Briefly jumping to your comments regarding the hampster: I am not capable of categorizing animals that are conscious. It is a lengthy discussion which requires a proof. There is no way (as far as we know) for us to live the life of a Hampster and view the world as he does. Unless you believe in reincarnation... otherwise that topic will remain inconclusive.

My philosophy is not to think of all the lifeforms as one, rather to think of yourself as one. No one else matters. Nothing else matters. It is only you - alone. As I described one possibility before - that of death; you may very well cease to exist for all eternity. You will never wake up to realize you have died, you will never gain the opportunity to review your memories, you will be finished, done, astala vista, FINITO - ERASED - ZERO - NOTHING. You will not think of what has happened, you will not think of what will happen, you will not think of what's happening.

If that option is indeed what death is (again, that may be near impossible to prove), then none of this would have mattered.

Did my life matter ? Sure our instincts tell us "of course. I watched numerous loved ones die, and surely enough the life goes on". Again though, I point out not to think of existence or reality, or life for that matter as a whole, consisting of people and things on this planet, but to rather think of it as yours - and yours only. If my opinion on death is true, will it matter ? Will anything matter ? Who cares ? You won't be there to realize it, thus it won't exist.

I will leave this post inconclusive on purpose. Mind is a very powerful thing; far more powerful and mysterious than we not only imagine, but can imagine. I believe in individual reason - individual perception. As Einstein said, what you see is not what I see.

In the end, I believe I'm the only "real" thing in the cosmos, for when I die, everything else shall too.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Some points of contention:

"You have to enable your mind to rise to a higher state of perception."

LOL, you sound like a hippy man , 

Perhaps >you< have to enable your mind to rise to a 'higher state'

, but i feel quite capable of sorting through these problems in my present state (of calm rationality). Is this perhaps another way of saying you dont really know how to explain it?  

Advocatexxx-  "Your assessment is quite possibly in the likes of "...well just because I can't see it doesn't mean it's not there".

You believe in things unseen, unheard, unthought of"

No , this is not what i meant.

I actually believe in the POSSIBILITY of objects existing outside of observation and as i said before  :

"Of course it exists in no quantifiable way, and so could be said to exist outside of conventional science-

thus it constitutes a kind of faith."

Can you contest the >possibility< of objects existing beyond your observation?

Unless you take a lack of evidence as ABSOLUTE PROOF of non-existance you surely cannot.

There is always a possibility (a near certainty according to some)  that any given unobserved object in a given unseen location might exist. Indeed simple human logic demands such a possibility.

You believe that if an object goes unseen then it does not exist in reality.

I contend that it might exist and that you cannot prove that it doesnt.

Thus you must accept the possibility of its existance

Thus >your< (or whos ever it is )

hypothesis is flawed.

Registration or recording by you of an object is not necessarily a prerequisite for its existence

merely a confirmation of potential. You can contend the possibility of an unseen objects potential to exist.

Advocatexxx- "In the end, I believe I'm the only "real" thing in the cosmos, for when I die, everything else shall too.!"

in a sense this is true, they will die to you. But in another sense this is egocentric and unscientific.

All that MIGHT happen (assuming death is a void) is that everything will go beyond observation to you. This is not PROOF of its failure to exist. Merely evidence of your failed senses and consciousness.

again this >belief< is not firmly grounded in science, so you are one step away from someone who believes in heaven.

All that could be said firmly is that (life being finite) the universe goes beyond your observation.

Less catchy but more accurate.

I stress again this is not proof of its failure to exist........

-

-

-

Hey how about someone else comes in -Nordin Where are you ??

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Furthermore i notice that you now say that only you-and your perceptive powers 'matter' (ie can be taken as the near truth)

whereas earlier you said that my wifes perceptive powers and sentience were relevant also -you appear to contradict yourself... so which is it?

Are you alone?- or are you with my wife ?(so to speak )

are other people verifiably sentient?

i believe not as your latest post hinted.

Furthermore i believe that nothing but your own mental existance is certain .

I believe not ,as you hinted

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

bmp

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

or bump.

[DarkLight 0]

Death means that there is no more tension in your body, this actually means that death is the best thing you can have, the biggest pleasure ever.

ps: I found this in my sister her book, it tells the meaning of the word Thanatos and what it is; i wanted this because it is my nickname on MSN

[advocatexxx 0]

I guess you're visualizing my views in a different perspective. When you die, will the world go on ? As I said before, every sense in your body tells you "yes". Though world, for all we know, and everyone/everything in it could merely be your mind's manifestation. The people you talk to, the things you interact may be all but illusions.

You yourself may very well be the God, the only intelligent being in the universe, and this is the world you invent for yourself to keep yourself occupied.

Who knows what the truth holds.

Maybe when you die, you'll realize you are really a being who's part of a far more intelligenct and advanced society, and that you were merely living the life of a primitive animal - the human as a school experiment.

Though that's a far out hypothesis. Contrary to what we've been taught over the years, that we must attent kindergarden, learn to tie our shoes, learn to speak/read/write, attend middle school, learn about our founding fathers and hear about how god damn great they were, attend high school, learn the table of elements, then graduate and receive your diploma, following either a service in the military or attend the college, after which we obtain a job which will lead us to our life-long career. We meet a girl, we marry the girl, we have children with the girl, we go on vacations, go through the average mid-life crisis. We start saving 401k and retirement money. We finally reach an age when we become grandparents and start looking towards death as the absolute end. Our wife dies, we bury her, we weep, we hold funeral service. And then, one day you find that it's your turn, life = end.

Considering how utterly balanced this eerie universe is, the inner working of the atom, the massive surges of x-rays being spit out by far away black holes, the size, complexity and a perfect mathematical perfection. All of a sudden, life seems quite ordinary in such a majestic place.

I hope there is more to it. I hope one day I will find the answers to those questions my little brain holds. I hope all of my myseries and troubles are all but an illusion (albeit a very presistent one, lol).

It doesn't matter what theory on life we agree on. There are billions of people on this planet. Each one of them is different, unique in some way. Some are black, some are white. Some are well educated, some are not. Some can heal their wound with herbal recipes dating to the age of indians, others can calculate PI to the 1000th decimal. It's this diversity that has always been at the root of all our problems, yet we can't help it. It is only natural to theorize that we as people will quite possibly never agree on a unified meaning of life.

"For long you live and high you fly

And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry

And all you touch and all you see

Is all your life will ever be" - Pink Floyd

[DarkLight 0]

Perhaps the universe is a molecule (is this written rigth?) of a creature

And when we mess up our world in a couple years, that poor thing will get cancer

Hey, eveything's possible, right?

No honestly, i look at death in a pretty terrible way, in my eyes, death is the end of everything, no god, no heaven, nothing... Remember that you sometimes go to bed and when you wake up you can't remember a thing of what you dreamed? Everything between the moment you fell asleep and woke up is gone, it looks like you just closed your eyes and woke up again. That's what i think death is like.

One day you'll be gone....forever... , darkness!

I can guarantee you that i'd rather believe in heaven and god than believing in this. But this is what i think and to be honest; i'm not sure about this, it's just the thing i think is possible...

I respect every person his thoughts about death, do you believe in heaven? God? Reincarnation? Life in some other way? I respect it, the reason is very simple, who am i to say that you are wrong....?

Of course death could also be that you come back as a non biological thing. The universe is sooo big that i can't say that this isn't possible.

Life's full of wonderful and beautiful things that actually are wonders, kids being born, that's a real miracle, nature, evolution,... So why shouldn't there be another one of those "miracles", who knows, perhaps death is a "miracle" too.

Yep, this world's pretty darn weird