Obviously a hypothetical scenario. There is no way to pass on the knowledge to anyone else. Time freezes for you only, and once you have your answer you are out of this world.

The question can allow you to see into the past, present and future and gain comprehension of any topic/issue. But it’s only one question.

Edit: the point isn’t “how to cheat death”. You can’t. Your body is frozen and there is nothing you can do with this knowledge other than knowing it, and die. So if you would rather be frozen in a limbo just thinking of numbers for eternity, be my guest.

Such a variety of replies, it’s been really interesting to read them!

What would you want to know? Personally I’d want to see a timelapse or milestone glimpses of humanity’s future until the end of Earth’s existence (if we survive that long)

  • Mr. Satan@monyet.cc
    1·
    1 year ago

    Let’s not involve physics terminology into a philosophical discussion. It confuses more than clarifies. Especially (with my limited understanding) when the claims might not be correct at all.
    I would expect multiple observers to have the same result no matter the distance between them. Such setup entangles the observers and the collapse has one real outcome.

    I would not dare to go deeper into the subject as this is the extent of my knowledge. To be convinced otherwise I should see a credible proof, experimental or theoretical.

    So even if you have friends and loved ones on the other side in your relative paradise, from an ‘identity’ perspective they won’t be exactly the same as the ones on this side.

    We might be arguing different things then. A relative paradise for me involves my loved ones. If they would not be there as they are now in my life, then it’s no paradise. But that would contradict our initial condition of ideal afterlife.

    This seems to be an inherent issue with this condition. It’s rather easy to construct contradictions in this framework. Moreover, as a moral framework it’s way too complicated for no aparent reason at all. Accepting unconditional relative afterlife idea either nulifies any moral argument at one point or another or requires to arbitrary ignore and contradict certain aspects of it.

    If I get to pick and choose things I accept in a theory, then it’s a bad theory.

    Because (a) most people don’t actually want to do that, and (b) there’s social consequences for eating babies in this world.

    My point exactly. However, what I was ilustrating is how easy it is to devolve into this kind of reasoning. What moral foundation is there to back up the descision? Most people don’t want to? That’s not a reason, that’s an observation. Whatever morals I construct on a social basis become irrelevant. That’s why religions have gods and sins.