LOVE - In Search of a Reason for Living	
 
	What is this book?
 
	This is a book about life, and a book about you. Its purpose is to send 
you on a journey through your heart, mind, and soul. If you take the 
journey you will find in yourself the reason for living. If you care at all about 
life and people and yourself, you will take the journey. 
 
	The day you were born you began a learning process that will continue 
for the rest of your life. You were, from the beginning, molded by your 
surroundings, parents, relatives, playmates, by all the general attitudes, 
ideas, and beliefs you came in contact with. As you grew older those early 
experiences affected and altered, both consciously and subconsciously, 
what you felt and did about all the day to day things that went on around 
you. Each new year of life added to your past, changing the way you 
viewed every new day, influencing how you reacted to everything from the 
simplest daily routines to complex events touching you, your family, and the 
world you lived in. 
 
	As you grew yet older you interacted with people from different 
backgrounds with differing ideas about life. You found yourself actively 
defending, modifying, or abandoning your early beliefs, adapting the various 
ideas you came in contact with to fit your developing perception of life. 
Perhaps new ideas were introduced to you by people with dynamic 
personalities who espoused one philosophy or another. Faced with the 
challenge of those ideas, you may have tenaciously defended your early 
beliefs, dismissing unfamiliar concepts with alarming ease by resort to 
ingenious, if not solid, arguments. On the other hand, you may have 
completely abandoned your past and adopted new beliefs opposite to 
those you once cherished. 
 
	However, like most people, you probably belong to that vast river of 
humanity which seems to move along in a fairly discernible direction, 
concerned at any given minute with living that moment in the easiest, most 
pleasant way possible. If so, you were and are more or less able to blend 
ideas, feelings, philosophies, desires, and realities to justify what you want 
to do. Along with the majority of people, you were and are good at 
sending questions and ideas about the meaning of life and death, as well as 
thoughts and feelings about what is good and right, deep into the cloudy 
regions of your mind. 
 
	Whether we realize it or not, most of us are voluntary prisoners of our 
minds, unwilling to question who we are and what we believe, happy to 
simply roll along through life. Most of us will live from birth to death in a 
world we have fashioned from our past to suit our present. Many will find 
comfort through unquestioned acceptance of their family's, or even a 
friend's, religious or philosophical heritage. Yet few will ever stand free 
from their present beliefs and daily lives to ask what is life about? Who am 
I? What should I do? What will I do? If there is meaning to life, and a 
reason for living, those questions must be answered. 
 
	If there is a true meaning to life, nothing that you do, say, or think will 
change that truth. What good is it to live your life believing what you are 
doing is right if your beliefs are false and what you are doing is wrong? It is 
an understanding of life that we seek, a search for something in life worth 
living for. 
 
	If you are to find the meaning of life you must be willing to recognize it if 
and when you see it. To do so requires you to open your mind and accept 
whatever you discover, even if it is totally opposite to your experiences, 
beliefs, and wishes. If you are to understand life you cannot hide in the 
comfort of daily living, clouding your mind to avoid discomfort. You must 
not reject what you discover if it does not fit what your life has been, is, 
and what you want it to be. 
 
	Since our discussion deals with the purpose of life, if what we are saying 
is true, your willingness to understand is a willingness to grasp the very 
reason for your living. If the answers you find are different from those you 
have molded for yourself, you must decide whether to continue on the path 
you are on, or go another way on a new path toward a new destination.
 
	Warning! There is a risk that as you read our book, you may 
misunderstand the discussion and think that we are suggesting that there is 
no "reason to live". That is not what we are saying at all! In fact we are 
saying the opposite, we have abundant hope that if you search for the 
reason to live you will find it. As you read this book you must not become 
discouraged or depressed. If you are or become discouraged, if you 
disagree with anything that is said, or if you simply don't believe what we 
are saying is "useful" to you, please finish reading the entire book. Even if 
you agree with what is being said, and think you understand what we are 
talking about, please read every section, including the appendices. If you 
are to find the true reason for living it is necessary that you understand what 
is discussed in the last section of the book (before the appendices). We are 
convinced that after you read this book, from cover to cover, and complete 
your journey through your heart, mind, and soul, you will find in yourself the 
reason for living. Anyone who is, or becomes, seriously depressed should 
always seek immediate medical help. [If you find yourself distressed or 
depressed by our conclusions please read the note following the 
appendices.]
 
	IF YOU ARE WHO YOU ARE, WHO ARE YOU?
 
	Each of us is born, we live lives of various lengths, and then we die. Each 
of us has, or perhaps develops, a separate nature and existence, a being, 
which is unique to us and sets us apart from every other person who lives 
or has ever lived. Indeed we share similar characteristics, but no two of us 
are the same person. As humans, each of us is distinct, each of us is an 
individual being. 
 
	What makes each of us unique is the fact that we perpetually make 
choices between alternatives. Our choices seem to be far more than 
mechanical selections based on some complex biological decision making 
scheme. Rather, your choice seems to be based not only on what you 
believe will happen if you make a certain choice, but also on what you 
"want" to happen. You, as all of us do, possess the ability to engage in 
what we will call “rational thought”, whereby each of us weighs many 
variables in a process that includes concepts of good and evil, right and 
wrong. “Rational thought”, as we define it, is reasoned thought that 
presents us with choices between alternatives. You ultimately reach a point 
in your rational thinking where that certain quality of being which is unique 
to you takes over and you make your free choice among the alternatives. 
 
	Biologists have demonstrated that the line between animal and human 
"thought" is not as clear as was once commonly assumed. There are 
animals that appear to have self-awareness, solve problems, communicate, 
exhibit emotions, etc. While there may be a very high degree of intelligence 
in the animal world, animals seem to lack the ability to make free choices 
by consciously "thinking" about alternatives and consequences. It appears 
that only human beings possess the necessary consciousness and symbolic 
languages that allow us to engage in significant abstract thought. 
 
	For example, animals may or may not harm other animals, yet they do not 
appear to be able to make reasoned choices to harm or not to harm by 
considering whether it is right or wrong to do so. An animal may make a 
“choice” to act kindly toward another animal based in part on their 
"inherent personality" and “basic instincts”. Yet it appears that an animal 
cannot make a rational, reasoned, choice to go against "inherent 
personality" and "basic instincts". Human beings can choose to do that 
which they would not otherwise do, to go against what their instincts, 
personality, and emotions tell them to do. Scientists often take this apparent 
distinction for granted. Rather than consider ourselves to be nothing more 
than highly evolved animals, we should recognize our ability to engage in 
"rational thought” and give more consideration to the fact that we appear to 
have truly unique mental abilities.
 
	Unlike any animal, your choices are made after rational thought. Even 
though you have instinctive feelings for self-preservation, procreation, self-
satisfaction, etc., decisions may be freely made for reasons and purposes 
totally opposite to those instincts. You can think about what you are going 
to do, and can choose to do what you believe is right and good even if it 
places you in grave danger. Similarly, you can choose to do what you 
believe is wrong and evil even if you would instinctively do otherwise. Your 
decision is your decision, a product of your singular existence and being. 
Able to engage in rational thought, and to choose freely among various 
courses of action based on those thoughts, you are in a very real sense 
what you choose to be. 
 
	One of the oldest controversies in human history deals with what the 
significance of rational thought really is. Perhaps the most debated question 
is whether or not rational thought actually gives us the ability to make 
“freewill” choices. Many scientists argue that every rational choice you 
make is in fact predetermined by your biochemical makeup. They admit 
that when you have a choice between two options you engage in both 
conscious and subconscious thought processes before making what you 
consider to be your decision. However they argue that no matter how 
convinced you are that your choice between A and B is your own, your 
brain chemistry actually dictates your selection. They suggest that your 
mind's decision-making processes cannot go beyond the level of chemical 
neurological activity. Therefore, even though your choices may in one sense 
still be said to be your own, they are in effect predetermined. Despite the 
agonizing doubts, careful thought, and numerous changes of mind that 
accompany daily decisions, most scientists believe the final decision would 
be totally predictable if they could decode your brain. 
 
	This idea of "determinism" not only shows up in science, but in some 
ancient philosophies and religions as well. Taken to its logical extreme, 
many believe in super-determinism, where all that is in the universe was in 
the past part of a closely related system in which "matter and energy" were 
joined. Many scientists and philosophers view everything from sub-atomic 
particles to human beings as part of a universe whose destiny was forever 
set at creation by the forces between its constituent parts, and whose future 
unfolds in a billiard ball like progression of "predictable" actions. To this 
school of thought, humans are prisoners of subatomic laws that determine 
the behavior of atoms that determine the behavior of molecules that 
determine the behavior of nerve cells that determine the behavior of human 
brains that determine the behavior of human beings. Even though the chain 
is totally imperceptible to humankind, and a feeling of control exists as an 
inherent part of human existence, they insist that what seem to be 
"spontaneous" decisions and reactions are actually destined to occur 
without any possibility of variance. 
 
	While most scientists are comfortable with the idea of an ordered and 
well-behaved universe, many view the complexity and reality of life as 
requiring events to be based on something less than absolute certainty. On 
the sub-atomic level this idea has been recognized in the so-called 
uncertainty principle. Those who accept the uncertainty principal might be 
called probability determinists. They argue for a determinism as certain as 
any, one that also sees humankind governed by forces beyond its control. 
Yet the reality dictated by their brand of determinism can only be described 
by stating how likely it is that a particular event, chosen from a list of 
possible events, will occur. In other words, they can eliminate what cannot 
happen, can give you a list of events that might happen, and can even tell 
you how likely it is each individual item will take place, but they cannot tell 
you which of the possible events will in fact occur. The exact future of the 
universe may be uncertain, yet it is still fundamentally predetermined. 

	Modern theories dealing with chaotic behavior tell us that because of the 
almost infinite number of possible combinations created by the interaction 
between objects we cannot complete the necessary calculations to 
determine what will in fact occur next. Furthermore, some mathematical 
problems may have no solutions, and seem to be fundamentally “non-
computable”. It is simply not known whether or not non-deterministic 
physical mechanisms exist in our universe. Virtually all of the currently 
“favored” cosmologic theories dealing with chaos, complexity, and 
computability agree that given enough information and processing power 
(even if the required amounts approach infinity) the probabilistic behavior 
of even the most complex system in our universe is "in theory" 
mathematically calculable. It is fair to say that all of the currently favored 
cosmologic theories conclude that our physical universe is, in some real 
sense, fully deterministic. 
 
	In a universe that had no living organisms, determinism would not be as 
hard to accept as it is in our universe inhabited by living creatures. One can 
visualize a universe devoid of life where every rock, every speck of dust, 
every atom, every sub-atomic particle, follows a pattern which was forever 
fixed at creation, and which expands into the future with absolute precision. 
In an inanimate universe, it is not as difficult to accept that rocks, specks of 
dust, etc., or even groups of these objects, have no "ability" to alter the 
course that the laws of physics dictate they follow. 
 
	It is much more difficult to accept that our universe, populated as it is by 
living organisms, is a totally deterministic one. If super-determinism is 
correct, we reach the intuitively unlikely result that the absolute time for 
every blink of our eyes is predetermined, every breath that we take is taken 
at precise moments and in exact amounts! There is nothing we can do to 
alter any of our physical motions - even the slightest twitch of our body 
occurs at the very moment it was destined to occur by the forces acting in 
the first second of the universe. Every change of our minds is inevitable, 
every thought we have ever had was predetermined and occurred without 
any chance of alteration. 
 
	If we live in a fully deterministic world, I was destined before birth to 
write precisely the words contained in this paragraph on the day and at the 
time and on the computer I wrote them on, and when the universe was 
formed you were destined to read precisely the words contained in this 
paragraph on the day and at the time you are reading them. At the 
beginning of the world, not only were you predestined to be precisely 
where you are right now, but you were also destined to be wearing the 
clothes you are wearing, have every hair on your head the exact length that 
each one is, have every object in the room placed precisely where it is, etc. 
Every thought you are having about what I am saying was predetermined to 
occur without the slightest variation, even your instant reaction to this very 
sentence was set at creation. This simply does not "seem" to be what 
actually happens, we intuitively "feel" that we can make meaningful choices 
among alternatives, perhaps so, perhaps not.
       
	Even though current theories do not appear to allow for freewill, some 
scientists and philosophers argue that no matter how well ordered your 
chemical thought processes may be, you reach a point in each sequence of 
mental activity where the unique being which you are makes a decision. A 
decision that goes beyond the confines of conscious and subconscious 
biochemical processes. A choice made after "considering" the products of 
your biological thought processes along with abstract concepts of good and 
bad, right and wrong, etc. They believe the basic, profound aspect of 
human existence, which makes you who you are, transforms your choices 
among alternatives into "free will" decisions that transcend physical 
constraints. 
 
	It is very difficult for those of us who have grown up in a scientific world 
to visualize, let alone accept, human thought extending beyond the chemical 
confines of the human mind. Yet there has been no scientific evidence 
(perhaps because no experiment has been devised that could test the 
hypothesis) that would refute the jump from predetermined biochemical 
thought to human thought controlled by individual beings. Because no one 
has explained the illusive quality that might make each human being unique 
and give them control over their decisions does not mean that it does not 
exist, nor does it mean it does exist. 
 
	Some scientists and philosophers believe that determinism might be 
compatible with the existence of a physical, as opposed to a non-physical, 
consciousness that can be held to be morally responsible for its actions. It 
would seem that those scientists and philosophers do not adequately 
appreciate the fact that all the currently favored physical theories are based 
on fully deterministic causal relationships, be they probabilistic or 
otherwise, and therefore lack any mechanism for human freedom or 
responsibility. They incorrectly conclude that because complex physical 
systems exhibit almost infinite complexity, those systems might support 
some kind of metaphysical freedom. On close examination this is not 
justified, simply because in every accepted theory all observable physical 
systems, from Planck scale to the scale of the universe, are governed at 
every level by deterministic laws. The idea that a physical consciousness, 
based on deterministic physical processes, might make meaningful choices, 
seems both illogical and fundamentally wrong. 

	Other scientists and philosophers argue that modern science has proven 
determinism to be "true". In fact, science has only begun to address the 
nature of human thought. On a sub-atomic level more questions have been 
raised than answers found, leading some to suggest that quantum effects 
may allow for free-will. Research into the nature of physical consciousness 
has demonstrated the incredible complexity, and fundamental mystery, of 
the human mind. Paradoxes associated with thought experiments suggest 
we have not yet begun to understand the basics of human consciousness 
and the possibility of freewill. Even if the human mind can make meaningful 
statements about its most fundamental nature (it is not at all clear it can), 
nothing to date either proves or rules out the existence of human freewill. 
For the moment we ask you to accept the possibility that freewill exists 
beyond biological and physical constraints. 
 
	We note that no matter how predetermined your existence may be, it can 
be argued that "you" make freewill choices even if it is chemically 
determined what those choices will be, simply because "you" are the 
product of your biochemistry. While that argument, and variations of it, 
may be true by definition, it seems if we are to be held accountable for our 
actions we should have a freedom of choice that can be anticipated to be 
found only in that which is beyond human chemistry. We ask that you keep 
an open mind about the possible existence of individual control which 
makes your decisions truly your own.
 
	WHO WILL YOU BE WHEN YOU NO LONGER ARE?
 
	If in fact you do exercise meaningful freedom of choice, what good is it to 
be a unique human being if at your death you cease to exist? If you do not 
continue to exist in some form after death, what good are all the 
experiences, decisions, triumphs, defeats, all the moments of your life? If 
you do not survive the grave, if you return to the state of being that 
preceded your birth, then I suggest to you that nothing in fact does matter. 
While over the ages men and women have sought to perpetuate themselves 
through their children, their place in history, their role in society, and 
through intricate philosophical webs of existentialism and other essays on 
physical man's importance, the fact of physical death remains. If each 
generation's death means the end of those individuals, then we are all faced 
with an endless cycle of creation and destruction, the meaning of which, if 
any, is beyond comprehension. 
 
	If there is anything in life we can count on occurring without fail, it is 
physical death. The successful bank president, the champion athlete, the 
housewife, the famous, the unknown, every human being, you, I, die. While 
all acknowledge the certainty of their eventual demise, few think about 
death until they are faced with it. The simple fact of death is not news to 
anyone, yet the reality of its impending occurrence is ignored by virtually 
every living person. The very nature of human life denies death and shrouds 
it in the cloak of future events, events that are not yet real and need not be 
dealt with in the present. Living is too important and time consuming to be 
concerned with mortality. The fact that you are moving steadily toward 
your death is most likely, and literally, to be the last thing on your mind. 
 
	Observing the inevitable death of every creature that inhabits the earth, 
we may have a recurrent feeling that death is the end. On the other hand, it 
is virtually inconceivable to us that all we are, all we have been, all we will 
be, will be rendered void in that moment of death. It goes against human 
nature to visualize the effective destruction of our past, present, and future, 
which accompanies death without existence beyond death. Yet if each 
human being does cease to exist, then all human beings are, or in the case 
of generations yet unborn will be, waiting their turn to cease existing. If 
each and every human being ceases to be, then the feeling of continuity that 
pervades the human race is false (please note, we will explain later why we 
do not believe that life is in fact destroyed by physical death). 
 
	In their arguments for humanism, existentialism, etc., philosophers have 
spent lifetimes trying to construct a difference between the apparent 
continuity of humankind, and the periodic death of individual humans. Most 
of us think of our ancestors as a link to the past, and our children as a link 
to the future, yet if we do not survive the grave each generation dies an 
isolated death that mocks any assertion that humankind has a continuing 
existence apart from its individual members. If each person's death results 
in their no longer existing, then no manner of historical recording, social 
progression, or other remembrance in the minds of those whose time to die 
is yet to come, can in any way affect, preserve, or make any difference 
whatsoever to those who no longer are. No one will survive to remember. 
If each of us ceases to be, then your life has no meaning and your choices 
make no difference.
 
	We admit that this logic seems counter intuitive, and even wrong, but if 
we are willing to dissociate ourselves from the incredible biologic urge for 
self-preservation, both of the individual and the species, and are willing to 
apply purely objective reasoning, the logical conclusion, while 
discomforting, is perhaps inevitable (there is at least one possible logical 
loophole we will discuss below that might give permanent meaning and 
value to a finite physical life). This is a very difficult conclusion to accept, it 
goes against our intuitive feelings about the continuity of human life, and 
against our assumptions that individual physical lives have some kind of 
meaning and value. Yet if we are little more than doomed animals, our 
intuitive feeling of meaning and value would not be surprising. From the 
very beginning, to assure survival of any species, evolution would certainly 
have instilled in living creatures the feeling that there is a reason for them to 
exist, a reason for them to crawl out of the ocean and build cities. If there is 
no life after death, and our lives are in fact consumed by "nothing", it is no 
wonder that our genetic heritage argues so strongly against that possibility. 

	Because it is so difficult to accept, we will consider our conclusion in 
more detail. It is logical to assume that if each person's consciousness is the 
product of their physical bodies, then individual physical consciousness 
exists only during that person’s physical life on earth. If each of our physical 
lives proceeds from birth to death, then the consequence of each person's 
death necessarily follows their death. Who can be affected by that death? 
Certainly those who survive may be affected, but here is the "problem", the 
death cannot be of any consequence to the purely physical human being 
who no longer exists! The moment before the death of a human being 
perhaps it can be said that their impending death affects that being, but the 
very moment after the person dies, he or she is no longer around to be 
affected! 
 
	Let us assume, for example, that a comet collides with the Earth at some 
time in the future before humans have colonized space. Assume further that 
all life on Earth is annihilated by the collision. It is very hard to accept, but if 
consciousness is nothing more than a physical phenomena, if there is no 
non-physical continuation of life after death, the most logical, I believe the 
only logical, conclusion is that the complete annihilation of humankind is of 
absolutely no consequence to humankind! While the words may sound 
bizarre and counter intuitive, in fact they are not. The moment after the total 
destruction of humankind it can be said with some certainty that the 
destruction of humankind had no affect whatsoever on humankind, simply 
because humankind no longer exists to be affected. 

	If you accept that time has direction (we believe that even absent a 
“fundamental time”, all events follow a causal, sequential, chain), then cause 
and effect, action and consequence, occur in a fixed order, the former 
always "preceding" the latter. Keeping that in mind, the idea that after the 
total destruction of humankind there would be no one left to be affected 
should not seem as bizarre. Assuming that one event will always precede 
another event in order of occurrence, if the event that is called the death of 
a human being is equivalent to the physical annihilation of that human being, 
the consequence of that event necessarily follows the event. If there is a 
causal sequence to events, then the annihilation cannot be of any 
consequence to a human being who no longer exists. Again, the moment 
before the destruction of humankind perhaps it could be said that the 
impending destruction affects humankind, but the very moment after 
humankind is destroyed there is absolutely no humankind left to be 
affected. Assume that the comet annihilates humankind at 12:00 noon, the 
consequence of that destruction occurs at 12:00 noon PLUS a moment in 
time, and at 12:00 noon plus the moment in time there is no humankind left 
to be affected. Indeed, there is no humankind around that is conscious of 
the fact that the comet struck the earth!

	The same logic applies to the history of individuals not visited by a 
catastrophic event. If you believe that each human being is nothing more 
than an individual physical entity, and therefore that there is no life after 
death, then at the time of their death each human being experiences the 
identical individual annihilation that all humankind would experience 
together if the earth and its inhabitants were simultaneously "destroyed". If a 
human being dies at 12:00 noon, and there is no life after death, at 12:01 
they are not "around" to be affected by their death. If an individual named 
Bill dies at 12:00 noon, at 12:01 Bill no longer exists to be affected by his 
death. If Bill is a physical entity that does not survive death, after 12:00 
noon (i.e. - after completion of the sequence of causal events that precede 
Bill's death) you could search the entire universe for Bill and you would not 
find him (some readers are probably thinking that Bill continues to exist as 
his world-line even after his physical death, we will discuss that later). Bill's 
death occurs at precisely 12:00 noon. Not minutes, or even moments, later. 
If there is no life after death, the very moment after the event known as 
Bill's death, Bill no longer exists. After 12:00 noon Bill cannot be affected 
by anything, including his death.

	The logic goes even further. If you do not believe that human 
consciousness continues to exist after physical death, then death not only 
annihilates each individual's present and future, but also annihilates their 
past. Most people would agree that for an object to have a present and a 
future the object must exist. Yet many would make the distinction that while 
an object cannot have a present and a future if it does not exist, it somehow 
can have a past. It is clear that the present and future of an object are 
bound to the existence of the object, but so to is the object's past. Much of 
the problem lies in the popular usage of the words past, present, and future 
both to describe that which is part of an object (a "past" that belongs to the 
object, like a person’s memories that “belong” to the living individual from 
birth to death), and to describe the existence of the object from a third 
party's view (a “past” which is a chronological description of the object, 
like a photo album containing pictures of an individual who has died).

	It is a misconception to equate the fact that there is a "history" of all 
beings or objects that is set in the "past", with the statement that a being or 
object that no longer exists has a "past". The first idea simply states that the 
being or object existed over a finite period that is apparent to those who 
currently exist. The extension of the concept of such a history to the idea 
that somehow the object or being that no longer exists still possesses a 
"past" confuses the distinction these two words can convey. Once an 
object or being no longer exists it obviously has no present or future, 
similarly the object has no past. While it may be difficult to accept, a 
mountain that no longer exists has no past, present, or future for the simple 
reason that there is no such mountain. There is a current history of a 
mountain that once existed, but there is no mountain we can point to and 
describe the "past" of. This is far more than semantics. A person who lived 
a thousand years ago had a historic life that those who are alive can be 
conscious of, but the person no longer has a past that is their past, which 
they can be conscious of. 

	The English language lacks the words that would make it easy to convey 
the difference between a “history” set in the past that is the sum of all 
lifetimes, and a “past” that is unique to and dependent on the existence of 
an individual life. Perhaps humankind has avoided the initially discomforting 
possibility of "finite pasts" by not distinguishing them from the infinite. 
Perhaps the majority simply do not accept the possibility of the perpetual 
annihilation of human beings.

	There are many arguments that purport to counter this logic, including 
assertions that a person's life before physical death has “existential” 
meaning in and of itself, yet all the alternative arguments are set in the time 
before death, within the causal sequence of events that precede death. 
Every humanistic theory is based on the biophysics of existence before 
physical death. We believe that none of the arguments adequately address 
the period after death (perhaps with the possible exception suggested by 
modern physics that is discussed below), and therefore none answer the 
question of how a person who no longer exists can have a past, present, or 
future?
 
	If death is the end of your existence, should you be frightened by the 
certainty of your destruction? If indeed you cease to exist, you need not 
fear death, for after your death you will feel neither pain, nor pleasure, nor 
peace, nor torment. "You" will no longer exist, therefore "you" will feel 
nothing. The resulting void is just that, a complete and total void. There is 
nothing to fear, for there will be no one to experience anything negative. 
There is nothing to look forward to, for there will be no one to experience 
anything positive. The only way you can visualize what is usually called a 
"nihilistic" death is to picture yourself after death as being in the same state 
you were in before birth (of course you were not really in any state at all). 
Trying to project yourself into the void that precedes life helps you 
understand the void that may follow death. This ultimate void would in a 
single moment consume your past, present, and future. No matter what 
philosophers may tell us, such a fate, while it would offer no hope, would 
leave nothing to be feared.

	Admittedly, our conclusions about physical death are totally opposite to 
our "common sense" understanding of life. Virtually everyone is certain, for 
example, that if they are eleven years old now, they have already 
experienced their tenth year of life, and nothing can take from them the past 
experience of being ten years old. It is this assumption, that our past 
somehow exists forever, that is at the heart of all humanistic belief systems. 
Indeed, belief in some kind of physical persistence of a human being's past 
is the only rational argument for the universal humanistic conclusion that 
even if physical death is the end, living a "good life" gives meaning and value 
to human existence. However there is a deep, deep, problem with the 
humanist's view. 

	"Humanistic" philosophers seem to accept that human consciousness is 
purely physical in nature, and acknowledge the end of consciousness at 
physical death. Yet almost all modern humanist philosophers tell us that a 
finite life can have meaning and value. The problem lies in failure to accept 
the rational and logical consequences for each human being if individual 
consciousness ceases to exist on the physical death of the mind and body. 
All of the humanist philosophers either ignore or misunderstand what the 
future holds for us after physical death if we are nothing more than physical 
beings. 

	Philosophers often speak of the void that would follow such a death as 
the abyss, the unknown, the approaching void, etc. All of these suggest that 
we are on a journey to a "place" which lies at the end of our physical 
lifetimes. If on our death we cease to exist, this idea that we are traveling to 
our ultimate destiny is false. What the philosophers are doing is giving 
substance to nothing. We are not traveling to an abyss, the void, or the 
unknown, for these words suggest that we are moving toward something. I 
recognize the seeming absurdity of the language, yet if on our death we 
cease to exist, then "nothing" totally consumes us. 

	This is the heart of the problem, we cannot in any way whatsoever 
understand or visualize "nothing". The moment we attempt to comprehend 
or visualize "nothing", the comprehension or visualization interjects 
something into "nothing", preventing us from reaching our goal. When we 
define "nothing" we give it the quality of being definable, a quality that can 
only be given to that which is more than "nothing". Nothing might be 
thought of as the total absence of physical reality, yet even this assigns a 
definition to the indefinable. The moment we think about "nothing" we make 
it an object that can be thought about, we make it an object that can only 
be more than "nothing". The only way we can answer the question "what is 
nothing?" is to answer it by not asking it, for if we ask the question we 
destroy the answer. Most people fail to recognize the fact that "something" 
simply cannot comprehend "nothing". If we are no more than physical 
beings, and if “nothing” follows our physical death, then at the moment of 
our physical death, "nothing" totally consumes us.

	What does science have to say about all this? We need to recognize that 
the very difficult conclusions we reach in this section are not necessarily 
supported by conventional interpretations of general relativity and quantum 
mechanics. The current understanding that human being’s have of the 
physical universe is fundamentally incomplete. Early concepts of space and 
time as absolute metaphysical entities would seem to be fully consistent 
with our analysis. However, modern physics tells us that the universe is 
much more complex than it was once thought to be. At the start of the third 
millennium, it is generally accepted that we exist in some kind of four 
dimensional “space-time”. The mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who 
helped formalize the math of space-time, said "…henceforth, space by 
itself, and time by itself, have vanished into the merest shadows and only a 
kind of blend of the two exists in its own right." 

	Space-time is essentially the history of the entire universe, containing 
every "event" that ever happens. A "world-line" is the history of an object / 
observer in "space-time". Each point on the world-line of a human being is 
generally thought to be a real physical event that represents a unique 
sequential moment in the life of that individual, from birth to death. 
Conventional wisdom is that the world-line of a human being is the "human 
being", so that human life is in some sense a permanent part of space-time. 
If this is so, perhaps we have a permanent physical past that is etched in the 
fabric of space-time.

	To see why we do not believe that science provides us with a physical 
past, we need to look at three interpretations of cosmologic theories. The 
first possible interpretation, the one that we strongly favor, brings into 
question the very nature of space-time. At first glance, the concept of a 
permanent physical space-time seems to imply that human beings have a 
physical past, present, and future. Most people assume that the math of 
space-time describes a permanent physical reality that surrounds us, a very 
real, very physical, space-time in which we exist. This may not be the case.

	The limited number of physicists who understand the incredibly difficult 
math, realize that the theory of general relativity tells us that the universe 
may be completely described without using a "fundamental temporal 
variable", without even defining what we call "time". The time we measure 
on a stopwatch that we use to clock a foot race is derived from comparing 
the motion of the runner from the starting line to the finish line with the 
motion of the hand rotating around the face of the watch. The time on the 
stopwatch is not, as Newton thought, a fundamental quantity in nature, 
rather it is a comparison of the motion of the person running down the track 
relative to the motion of the hands of the stopwatch. Therefore, we may be 
justified in concluding that "time" is derived from relative motion, but that 
relative motion does not necessarily require the passage of time. It may be 
true that “fundamental time” simply does not exist.

	This is a shocking idea for human beings who are confronted with the 
ticking away of years, days, hours, and seconds. Even so, if you think 
about it, a year is nothing more than the relative motion of the earth going 
around the sun, a day is the relative motion of the earth rotating around its 
axis, an hour is a fraction of the motion we call a day measured by a quartz 
"moving" in a watch, a second is very close to the relative motion of a 
beating heart, etc. We don't expect to convince you in a few paragraphs 
that time is an illusion, it took years of reading and thought for us to reach 
that conclusion, but we do want you to recognize that there is a strong 
possibility that fundamental time does not exist. If this is a correct 
interpretation of general relativity, it can lead to the conclusion that there is 
no temporality of any kind associated with our universe. 

	There are extremely serious objections to this line of thought. In its most 
popular forms, the other 20th century revolution in physics, quantum 
mechanics, incorporates a fundamental temporal variable. Some scientists 
believe that general relativity will be found to be incomplete, and that 
quantum mechanics tells us that time does in fact exist. Other physicists 
agree that the universe lacks a fundamental temporal variable by which the 
universe evolves, yet they also believe that in some very real sense the 
universe exhibits fundamental "temporality". None-the-less, there are a few 
respected physicists who believe that we should accept what general 
relativity is telling us, that there is no fundamental temporal variable in the 
universe, and find a way to modify quantum mechanics to eliminate both 
"time" and "temporality" from quantum theory. Given the success of general 
relativity in predicting experimental results, we strongly believe that this is 
the correct approach. We are convinced that if and when physicists 
discover a broad model that incorporates both relativity and quantum 
theories, what is usually called a theory of quantum gravity, it will not have 
any kind of fundamental temporal variable associated with it, and we will 
find that the universe is fundamentally "atemporal" in nature. 

	If the theory of general relativity is in fact part of the illusive theory of 
quantum gravity, and if we do in fact live in an "atemporal" universe, one 
extremely speculative result might be that physical events in our lives either 
exist, or do not exist. The statement that a point on a world-line exists in 
the universe may be false, true, false, with no sense that “false” is “before” 
or “after” true! If so, then it may be quite literally true that your tenth 
birthday does not exist, does exist, does not exist in the universe. Perhaps 
you believe that your tenth birthday is a permanent part of your past only 
because it is part of your current memories, not because it exists in some 
kind of permanent physical space-time. We need to emphasize that this is a 
very speculative idea, that at the beginning of the third millennium is 
considered nothing more than science fiction by most, perhaps all, 
cosmologists.

	If we live in an essentially "atemporal" universe, and there is no non-
physical existence after death, we are convinced that physical death 
consumes each human being's physical past, present, and future. This is 
very difficult to understand and accept, yet the idea that there is no 
fundamental temporality, and that this fact leads to the annihilation of our 
physical past, intuitively appears to us to be the correct interpretation of our 
physical universe. When you finish reading this book you may have 
questions about some of our conclusions, especially about the very 
complex relativistic and quantum science behind this part of our book. You 
may want to obtain a copy of detailed notes and comments that we release 
from time to time (addresses are provided at the end of this book), where 
we try to present a broader picture of the foundation and logic that 
supports the conclusions. 
 
	The reason that we end up relying on intuition, and cannot be more 
certain that our conclusions are correct, is simply because no one knows 
what physics will look like if and when relativity and quantum theories are 
united. Furthermore, there is no way to tell how long it will take to find 
answers to the basic questions raised by modern physics. Indeed, it is quite 
possible that we will never know the answers to many of our most 
fundamental questions. We believe that the universe is essentially 
atemporal, and that physical death annihilates our physical (but not any 
non-physical) past, present, and future, but we may be wrong!

	OK, let's say that you are unwilling to even think about "time" not existing, 
would the existence of "time" restore a meaningful physical past to your 
life? The second possibility we will look at is based on the fact that most 
popular interpretations of modern physics suggest that the physical 
existence of each human being somehow persists in space-time in the form 
of the individual's "world-line”. Classical interpretations often say that an 
object is the entire world-line of that object, or that a human being is his or 
her entire world-line, but they do not really explain what is meant by this. 
They do, however, almost universally conclude that each event in a human 
being's life exists as an event in space-time, so that if we could observe the 
point on a world-line that is the tenth birthday of someone who is now 
eleven years old, we would see that person experiencing their tenth 
birthday. We would not see a "copy", or a "repeat", of the particular day, 
we would see the person's tenth birthday as it is occurring, period!

	It would seem that this characteristic of all popular space-time theories 
leaves us without tools for building a rational model of a universe that 
contains a "conscious" world-line that is the "me" reading this book. Rather 
it tells us that there is, and always will be, a set of unique "me's" that 
somehow exist in space-time at every single event on my world-line. We 
might want to say that I am the "sum" of all the points, yet the assertion that 
a human being is his or her entire world-line, from birth to death, does not 
appear to be consistent with the general consensus that every event along a 
world-line has a singular existence that cannot be preferred over any other 
event on that world-line. 

	The theory of relativity tells us that all of the laws of physics are the same 
for every inertial observer. If we live in a fully relational, relativistic universe, 
we simply cannot prefer observations made in the inertial frame of 
reference of one observer over observations made in the inertial frame of 
reference of any other observer, no matter where they may be “located” in 
space-time. An apparent consequence of this fact is that for one observer 
your tenth birthday occurs before your eleventh birthday, while for another 
(spatially separated) observer your eleventh birthday occurs before your 
tenth! Relativity tells us that both observers are 100% correct in their 
observations. The cosmos appears to be a very strange place! 

	Classic interpretations imply that each individual exists as discrete human 
consciousness in the billions of discrete events located at every point along 
that individual's world-line. Some physicists describe this by saying that 
there are many "now's"; others say there are billions of approximate 
"isomorphs" of "me"; many claim there are billions of other worlds in which 
various versions of "me" co-exist; etc. It seems reasonable to conclude that 
modern physics tells us that if time exists, literally billions of discrete, very 
real, versions of each of us occupy space-time!  

	This may seem like science fiction, yet surveys of theoretical physicists 
and cosmologists confirm that most believe we must adopt some form of 
many-worlds, multiple existence, theory. Remember, this is currently 
accepted as the most promising approach to the problems of space-time, 
and not merely a speculative idea. If there is a "me" that exists on my 
world-line for every event in my physical life, or if there really are an infinite 
number of parallel universes in which I exist, then there is no singular "me". 
Rather there are billions of isolated "me's" either lying along my world-line, 
or stuck somewhere in totally isolated universes. If the scientists are 
correct, it would seem to be impossible to find meaning and value for a 
singular "me" in the collective existence of each of the billions of instances 
of individual consciousness, no single one of which is the real true "me" who 
can live a meaningful life. All of the popular interpretations of relativistic and 
quantum theories seem to lead us to the same conclusion, if you do not 
have a single permanent existence, your life has no meaning and your 
choices make no difference to “you”, simply because there is no single 
physical "you" that exists before or after physical death (please remember, 
we believe that life has meaning and value). 

	There is a third possibility, that the intuitive feeling human beings have that 
their physical past exists as a singular entity is based on some real, yet 
unknown, physical model of our universe. The intuitive feeling is very strong 
that our physical life makes a positive or negative contribution to human 
existence, and that our physical life is a permanent part of the physical 
universe. Perhaps there is some single physical consciousness that 
incorporates all of the events along our world-line, and that preserves our 
physical past, present, and future. We cannot rule out this possibility, if for 
no other reason than the fact that it is theoretically impossible to prove a 
negative. In other words, we might be able to prove that physical 
consciousness after death exists in the universe by observing it, but we can 
never prove that physical consciousness after death does not exist because 
we have not observed it (we will discuss this limitation in some detail a bit 
later in the book). 

	The third possibility seems to require the existence of a physical 
consciousness that is not bound to events on a world-line. Some physicists 
suggest that consciousness has unique physical properties so that human 
beings become sequentially “aware” of events on world-lines that are 
essentially frozen in a “block universe”. Yet, as we have already said, in 
every currently popular physical theory the universe “evolves” as a 
sequential progression of space-time “events”. It seems intuitively true that 
if human consciousness is a physical phenomena, that can be explained 
either by current theory or by physical laws that are not yet known to 
science, it is in some real sense inextricably bound to each of these space-
time events. It seems intuitively difficult, or impossible, to accept that such a 
dynamic physical consciousness could incorporate individual predetermined 
“block” events into a singular human being without violating the basic tenets 
of relativity. While it is true that a physical consciousness that is not bound 
to physical events might represent a unique singular existence, it is also fair 
to say that there is no known reason to believe that physical consciousness 
is not inexorably linked to individual physical events, making the third 
possibility seem to be almost an impossibility.

	There may be many “me’s” that are experiencing past events in the 
“past”, and I may have a memory of past events in the present, yet the 
intuitive conclusion is that my physical consciousness does not experience 
past physical events “now”. It seems intuitively true that if consciousness of 
past events can be lost when memories fade or are damaged, then physical 
consciousness has not incorporated those past events into a permanent 
singular “me”. Einstein only briefly addressed this matter when he said “An 
individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my 
comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise…. Enough for me the mystery 
of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, 
together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it 
ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.” 

	It seems that if we are to believe that there may be some kind of singular 
physical (rather than non-physical) consciousness that survives physical 
death, then we must accept that there is some unique physical 
consciousness that is "me", that somehow incorporates all of the conscious 
events of my life, and that is not dependent on the continuing physical 
existence of my biologic body. While current interpretations of popular 
theories do not totally rule out the possibility of a perpetual individual 
physical consciousness, there is no known method that is both rational and 
realistic (i.e.- a theory that appears capable of modeling physical reality), to 
construct a physical (as opposed to a non-physical) model that preserves 
the singular human physical consciousness of an individual after the physical 
death of that person. Modern theories suggest the possibility that multiple 
instances of a physical “me” exist in space-time, but they do not offer even 
a clue as to how to unite all of those instances into a single physical “me” 
whose consciousness spans space-time. Indeed, current interpretations of 
quantum superposition seem to deny the possibility of a “single” physical 
reality in which a unique “me” might exist. 

	I can visualize and accept a “non-physical consciousness” that survives 
physical death, yet I am unable to have any confidence at all in the 
existence of a singular “physical consciousness” that survives the physical 
death of a human being. To do so, it would seem that I would have to 
discover a new physical process that incorporates all the “events” in a 
human life, and that creates a unique, singular physical consciousness that 
continues to exist in space-time as that human being, or at least as 
something that we can call a singular past that belongs to the human being. 
This seems to me to be an impossible task. I may be wrong, yet I simply 
cannot find an accepted physical theory that supports a unified "physical" 
consciousness that survives physical death. Furthermore, I do not know of 
any credible objective physical evidence that such a “physical” 
consciousness might exist. I can say that after many years of thought I am 
thoroughly convinced that any attempt to construct a model of permanent 
physical consciousness does far more damage to the centuries of 
accumulated scientific knowledge, than does the acceptance of the 
possibility that a permanent non-physical consciousness may exist. 
 
	We have concluded that no current, or reasonably foreseeable, rational 
theory provides us with a singular physical consciousness that continues to 
exist after physical death, so that a single physical "me" continues to exist 
after my death in my physical “past”. We have said that if we do not have a 
singular physical or non-physical consciousness that continues to exist after 
physical death, then those who believe in nihilism are probably correct, and 
some type of "nihilistic" void awaits all of us. It may be a true void, like the 
void that preceded our birth, or it may be a very strange void where billions 
of "me" merely co-exist. Whatever physical form it might take, it would 
seem to satisfy the definition of a "meaningless" void. 

	A moment's comment on those who believe they may be able to 
physically perpetuate themselves through cryogenics, cloning, etc. If, we 
live in a constantly expanding universe, our universe will eventually return to 
a state of uniformly high entropy, so that the cosmos will become a hostile 
environment in which physical life cannot be sustained. If, on the other 
hand, theories that predict endless cycles of expansion and contraction of 
our universe are correct, nothing physical can survive beyond the next 
collapse of the universe a few billion years from today. While a physical 
end to all biologic creatures may seem absurdly far away, your great, great, 
great (to the 100th. power), grand-clone would find it frightfully real when 
the time came for their physical demise, a distant time from now which like 
all imaginable time is but a second in eternity. There is simply no 
cosmologic model that we know of that offers any hope for a perpetual, 
physical, human existence.
  
      Even if in some unknown manner multiple clones could survive in 
an ever-expanding universe, the idea that they are perpetual extensions of 
their donor seems less than credible, perhaps so, perhaps not. Such a 
perpetual presence seems to be more like an endless path of meaningless 
individual moments than a continuous meaningful existence. Furthermore, if 
there is no life after death, it would make no difference if an individual 
(cloned or otherwise) continued to exist, or "died" in one hundred years or 
in one billion years, because "death" would annihilate the individual's past, 
present, and future. 
 
	If physical death annihilates all individual consciousness then there is no 
reason whatsoever to embrace cryogenics, cloning, strong artificial 
intelligence, or any other means of extending physical life. Since an 
individual's death would carry with it no possible consequence to that 
individual, there is no logical reason whatsoever for the living individual to 
avoid the "consequences" of death. If an individual no longer exists after 
death, that individual has no reason at all to feel anything positive, negative, 
or otherwise about death (or for that matter anything at all about life). 
Again please note, we do not believe that physical death annihilates 
individual consciousness, and we strongly believe that life does have 
meaning and value.
 
      What should our response be to all of this? We strongly believe 
that there is absolutely no reason not to live for the possibility that life has 
meaning and value. We think we are right about the transitory nature of 
physical consciousness, but we may be wrong. If our conclusions are 
wrong, perhaps we do in fact have a physical consciousness that survives 
physical death. If we are wrong, we may have a perpetual physical 
existence that gives meaning and value to our physical lives, even if there is 
no non-physical life after death. We will not pursue this possibility, yet you 
should recognize that it exists. 
 
      If we are right, if our physical consciousness does not survive 
physical death, our death may mark the end of our existence. Yet if our 
physical consciousness dies, it is still quite possible that we will not face a 
"nihilistic" death. Perhaps we have a non-physical consciousness that 
survives physical death, and that gives meaning and value to our lives. We 
will consider this possibility in more detail as we continue our search for a 
reason for living. 

	Beyond the human desire for meaning in life, we would suggest that the 
logical consequence of what philosophers call a nihilistic death, "requires" 
the search for alternatives to nihilism. Those who believe that the nihilistic 
void is approaching are, by the very nature of their humanity, required to 
search for something to believe in other than the void. While it appears to 
be impossible to scientifically prove that life has meaning and value, it is 
equally impossible to prove that life has no meaning and value. No matter 
what the person who believes that life is meaningless may believe to be true 
at any particular time in their life, the possibility always exists that he or she 
may eventually find true meaning and value in their life. 
 
	There is no reason to be a "nihilist", no reason to believe that life ends at 
death. If nihilism is correct, if life does end at death, it makes no difference 
whatsoever if we believe it is correct, or not. If we believe nihilism is 
correct, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that would follow 
death. If we believe nihilism is not correct, and it is correct, that does not 
alter the void that would follow death. If we do not believe anything at all 
about nihilism, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that would 
follow death. Yet if nihilism is not correct, belief and/or faith in that which 
offers a reason for living may well be essential to our existence. If because 
we believe nihilism is correct we accept the void, and we are wrong, then 
we have doomed ourselves. If we recognize that the humanistic belief that 
there is no life after death leads to the nihilistic conclusion that the "void" 
will consume past, present, and future, then to escape the quicksand of 
nihilistic time we must search for alternatives that provide a reason for 
living. 
 
	It is very important to recognize that nihilism can never lead to suicide, for 
nihilism tells us that if we do in fact live in a nihilistic world, nothing that 
happens in our lives, no matter how "badly" we may feel about it at the 
time, has any "real" consequence at all. It tells us that what we perceive to 
be the very worst events in our lives are no better, or worse, than any other 
events. I am absolutely convinced that the philosophical neutrality that 
nihilism demands, means that nihilism never suggests or supports suicide as 
an option for any human being. 
 
      Furthermore, since it is absolutely clear that we may not live in a 
nihilistic world, and that nihilism may be wrong, there can never be any 
reason to terminate our life, risk the negative consequences, and abandon 
the possible positive consequences of living a meaningful life. We are a 
small part of the whole. Unless the answer is revealed to us by the whole, 
we can never know during our physical lives what really happens when our 
physical life ends. Life may have physical or non-physical meaning and 
value that we do not, and perhaps cannot until our physical death, 
recognize and understand. 
 
There is no reason at all to reject the possibility that each of us has some 
kind of permanent physical or non-physical consciousness. There is 
absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to reject the possibility that nihilism 
may be false! There is no reason whatsoever not to search for an 
alternative to nihilism, to explore the possibility of a permanent physical or 
non-physical consciousness, to search for a reason for living. There is 
absolutely no reason whatsoever not to live for the possibility, however 
remote you may believe it to be, that life has meaning and value. [If you find 
yourself distressed or depressed by our conclusions please read the note 
following the appendices.]
 
	IS THAT ALL THERE IS?
 
	If it is true that your existence ends with physical death, does that mean 
that your life is meaningless? As we have said, the answer is probably (but 
not “certainly”) yes. Therefore, is it true that your life has no meaning? The 
answer is a qualified no. If we are somehow more than our physical bodies, 
if we can exist beyond and apart from those bodies, then perhaps each of 
us survives physical death and continues to exist, in some manner and form, 
beyond the grave. If you are, or you become through living, a unique 
individual who possesses the ability to engage in rational thought and 
exercise freedom of choice transcending biological processes of 
determinism, perhaps you have an existence beyond your physical mind 
and body, perhaps not. 
 
	Since the dawn of recorded history people have thought and written 
about existence beyond physical death. Some have suggested that extra 
sensory perception, premonitions, unexplained knowledge of past events, 
along with other similar and possibly real phenomena, are part of the world 
beyond death, perhaps so, perhaps not. Perhaps the unique being which 
each of us is, the present existence that makes your choices and your life 
yours alone, exists now and after your death in a realm beyond the 
physical, perhaps not. Perhaps that which you are survives like energy in a 
dimension coexistent with the physical world but beyond the constraints of 
space, motion, and time, perhaps not. Perhaps each of us continues to exist 
in a manner and fashion infinitely beyond our ability to imagine, let alone 
comprehend, perhaps not. 
 
	A great number of people have spent vast amounts of time and effort 
studying all manner of phenomena outside everyday experiences. Many, 
most, or even all "inexplicable" events may be explained by future 
generations of scientists. The most amazing phenomena are not the 
dramatic events often attributed to the "supernatural", events which could 
as easily as not be emotional illusions or the consequence of known or 
unknown physical laws. What are amazing to me are simple occurrences 
that defy probability. We have all experienced, and therefore witnessed, 
baffling events that leave one with a feeling that their explanation may lie 
outside the realm of natural science. For example, most of us have thought 
about someone we have not seen for years, only to bump into them a few 
minutes later. Even more amazing are instances that may occur when we 
are facing major events in our lives, when we are in some way confronted 
by someone or something that leads us toward a “better” choice. When 
faced with such occurrences, I have often found myself with an “intuitive” 
feeling that they are in some non-physical sense “planned”, perhaps so, 
perhaps not.
 
	I have paid a great deal of attention to the kind of occurrences that are 
classified by scientists as "amazing coincidences". While most can be 
accepted as coincidental, some appear to be one in a million events that 
happen with such regularity that the odds against them being merely 
coincidental are incredibly large. It is impossible for me, in good 
conscience, to dismiss them as being nothing more than random events. 
Many appear to be “objective” phenomena, well suited to empirical study, 
that statistically support the conclusion that they are not the result of 
chance. 
 
	I have little difficulty accepting that there are events that are in fact 
controlled by forces beyond our present knowledge. Indeed, I am 
convinced that there is a non-physical explanation for many events. If they 
are true phenomena, and not products of the mind, their very existence 
strongly suggests that there is a world which is quite real lying somewhere 
beyond normal human perception. A brief glance at, a fleeting contact with, 
what may be the world beyond the one in which we live gives a shocking 
reality to what we academically speculate about, or even faithfully believe 
in. 
 
	Though we may profess to believe in that which we cannot see, we may 
also find ourselves surprised when our beliefs appear to be true. Possible 
contact with a world beyond human perception gives us a startling 
realization that we may be eternally subject to forces absolutely beyond our 
control, and leaves us with a chilling or hopeful feeling (depending on your 
view of your prospects if eternity exists) that death will not be a simple, 
restful, eternal sleep. None-the-less, a belief that we may have glimpsed the 
world beyond, no matter how convincing at the moment, is diluted over 
time. The human mind's natural presumption is against out of the ordinary 
observations that, by definition, provide infrequent reinforcement of beliefs. 
 
	Of course, it may be true that "supernatural" events, though perhaps of 
great significance to the living, are nothing more than manifestations of 
physical and biological processes beyond our present ability to explain, 
similar to early civilization's attempts to explain through myths the 
phenomenon's of fire and lightening. If so they have no significance at all to 
the question of our existence after physical death. Yet it may be that they 
are images created by the overlapping of the current world and a world 
you will find yourself in after death. 
 
	There is no present answer to the questions posed by what many 
perceive to be “metaphysical” events. Our discussion deals with what the 
meaning and purpose of life is. As we continue you will see that whether or 
not anyone has in fact witnessed supernatural phenomena originating from a 
world beyond the grave, though a question which peaks curiosity, is not an 
essential, or perhaps even an important, one. You will see that we don't 
need to look for metaphysical events in our lives to understand what life is 
all about. The significance of such events is beyond the scope of this book 
and is simply not necessary to our discussion. 
 
	We will see that even if no one ever has had, or ever will have, any 
contact in this world with a world beyond the grave, it would not mean that 
such a world does not exist. We will explore in detail the possibility that we 
may continue to exist after death. At this point we ask that you keep an 
open mind about life after death. For now, please accept the possibility, 
however remote you may feel it is, that in some manner and fashion we 
continue to exist after our physical death.
 
	THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
 
	If a scientist, philosopher, or anyone else tells you something is true, and 
in fact it is not true, it is not true. To say something is true does not make it 
true. Even though you are told something is true, if it is not true it is simply 
not true. On the other hand, if something is true it is true, even if you are 
told or believe that it is not.
 
	If something is true or false, it is true or false whether we believe it to be 
true or false, or have not thought about its truth at all. If we believe a lamp 
is on a table, whether we have any evidence it is or not, and it is in fact on 
the table, then what we believe to be true is true. If we cannot determine 
whether or not the lamp is on the table, that does not change the actual 
position of the lamp. Even though without evidence we cannot prove a 
lamp is on a table, if it is on the table it is there and our belief is true. 
 
	Just because we cannot prove something is true does not in any way 
mean it is not true. Because we cannot prove, or disprove, we continue to 
exist after the death of our bodies does not mean that we do not continue 
to exist, or that we do. If we continue to exist after our physical death, then 
we continue to exist, and if we do not, then we do not. 
 
	If there is no one in a forest to hear a tree fall, does the sound of the tree 
falling really exist? If there is no one to see a tree fall, does it really fall at 
all? "Does an event occur if there are no observers?" is a valid question that 
perhaps can be answered "yes" only if the observer not only sees the event, 
but also continues to exist forever beyond the time of the event. In other 
words, if only inanimate objects surround an event such as the turning on of 
a lamp, perhaps it can be said no event has occurred since nothing has 
been seen, heard, etc., to change. Similarly, if a living observer witnesses 
an event but at some later date the observer ceases to exist, what value 
was the observation? Of course the argument can be made that seen or not 
seen photons stream from a light when it is turned on. Furthermore, it can 
be suggested that once seen or heard an event has “actualized”. Much 
depends on how you define "event", but underlying the question is a 
troublesome perception that goes beyond semantics, a feeling that a world 
without permanent observers lacks anything similar to what we call 
"reality". 
 
	Even though we disagree, some philosophers have moved toward the 
view that "language" is the unique factor which gives humans the ability to 
think thoughts, and that language is the only thing that distinguishes us from 
animals. They suggest that using language, our consciousness assigns the 
concepts of true and false to the things and events that surround us. Some 
of them believe that "truth" has no meaning outside the human mind, and, 
therefore, in a very real sense, that "truth" does not exist as an independent 
reality. 
 
	I am not uncomfortable with the idea that in an inanimate universe "truth" 
may not exist, and therefore there must be an observer for "truth" to have 
meaning. However I am very uncomfortable with the suggestion that where 
a permanent observer does exist, "truth" is merely a creation of that 
observer's consciousness. If we survive the grave, we may well have a 
perpetual consciousness that can observe and remember the "truths" which 
surround us. Whether or not a lamp has been observed to be on a table, if 
the lamp is physically sitting on a table the very existence of permanent 
observers who could observe the lamp may give independent meaning to 
the statement that it is "true" that the lamp is on the table, perhaps so, 
perhaps not. If memories of human events die with each person, then 
events themselves become little more than transient observations made by 
the living. Yet if we survive the grave, it would seem that we would have a 
continuing consciousness that recognizes a real and fundamental difference 
between that which is "true" and that which is "false". For now, please 
accept the possibility that some things are either fundamentally "true", or 
not.
 
	If we want to consider in greater detail the possibility of our continued 
existence after the death of our bodies, we need to be able to make 
statements we can believe to be true. In our quest to find some meaning in 
life, we must develop some method of determining "truths" which we can 
have a fair degree of confidence in. To do so we first need to understand 
what it means to be able to "prove" something, scientifically or otherwise. 
 
	Over the centuries the quest for truth has been refined into the process of 
scientific analysis. A brief summary of what has come to be known as the 
scientific method is helpful. Scientists observe what they want to study and 
record properties they believe to be relevant to their research. While some 
may have preconceived notions of what they will find, others begin the 
process of experimentation and observation without any idea what, if 
anything, they will discover. Even though they may believe they will achieve 
a certain result, scientists who do not approach every experiment with open 
minds are not scientists at all. 
 
	After gathering what they consider to be enough information about an 
object or event, scientists sit back, study the data, and try to combine and 
organize the information to discover a pattern running through it. They look 
for a model that not only describes what they currently observe, but that 
also perfectly matches past observations. The resulting descriptions of the 
world around them are known as theories or theorems. These in turn can 
be used to predict what will happen in the future under the same or similar 
circumstances. 
 
	Efforts to formulate theorems that describe observations would be in vain 
if the universe was made up of random events, occurring without reason or 
order, for then no one could say what will happen next. Of course, that 
appears not to be the case, as our universe seems to behave in a more or 
less ordered manner. As we have studied the cosmos in more and more 
detail, it seems to be true that (what one scientist called his "gut feeling") all 
physical objects comprised of matter and energy (which may or may not 
include all aspects of human "consciousness"), from the tiniest atomic 
particle to the largest system, behave according to some fixed set of laws. 
These laws can be thought of as if-then statements, which describe what 
will happen if a certain event occurs. For example, one of the well-known 
results of the law of gravity is that IF an apple comes loose from the branch 
of a tree, THEN it will fall to earth. 
 
	For several reasons I regret using simplistic examples to make a point. 
Because of their simplistic nature, they tend to lessen the importance of the 
point being made. They narrow the reader’s focus from the broad, general 
truth of a statement to a specific, small part of the whole. Simple examples 
tend to be incredibly inadequate when used to illustrate complex feelings, 
beliefs, ideas, etc. Some people feel they are being talked down to, or 
think they already understand what is being said. They risk missing the 
deep significance that often hides within the example. On the other hand, 
simple examples can be used to bring a point quickly home, allowing us to 
bypass a good bit of background discussion and to explore at once 
concepts which are best understood when drawn rapidly and 
simultaneously into the mind. The dangers of simplistic examples can only 
be overcome by the reader who is aware of the shortcomings, and is willing 
to expand in their mind the examples so that the "profound" will not be 
misunderstood to be "simple". 
 
	Back to gravity and the falling apple. The law itself basically states that 
objects exert a force on each other that attracts them toward one another, 
the strength of the attraction being related to their masses and the distance 
between them. The fundamental law of gravity was described by Isaac 
Newton after he observed that objects that are dropped fall toward earth. 
By repeating his experiment over and over again, by dropping object after 
object, Newton gained confidence what he theorized to be true was true, 
objects attract each other with a strength directly proportional to their 
masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. 
 
	Each successful test of Newton's theory of gravity made scientists 
increasingly confident the theorem was correct. Why should repeated 
successes, i.e. more and more apples falling off trees, increase the 
confidence of the scientists? Beyond the "common sense" feeling that 
repeated successes increase confidence in success, is there some 
"scientific" reason to be optimistic? 
 
	Enter the world of statistics. Mathematicians have long recognized that 
the larger the sample that is taken from a group of items, the better able 
they are to predict what individual items are like in the group. The larger the 
sample the more confident they can be that a "strange" or uncharacteristic 
item will not be found. This is true due to the fundamental nature of the 
mathematics behind statistical inference. It is true no matter what the items 
being sampled are, so long as the sample is not biased. 
 
	For example, if you randomly sample 500 apples out of a box containing 
100,000 thoroughly mixed apples, and find not a single rotten one, a 
mathematician can tell you with a great degree of confidence what the 
chances are that none of the 100,000 apples is rotten. If you sample 1000 
apples out of the 100,000, he or she can be more certain. After inspecting 
10,000 apples, he or she can be even more certain. If 5 rotten apples are 
found in a sample of 500, or 45 in a sample of 1000 the mathematician can 
tell you how many rotten apples you are likely to find among the 100,000 
apples. No matter what is in the box, whether it is 100,000 apples, 
100,000 pencils, 100,000 transistors, 100,000 anything, so long as the 
items are uniformly mixed, anyone can tell by drawing a random sample 
how many of the items in the box are likely to have one or more traits in 
common (i.e. color, size, shape, etc.). The bigger the sample, the more 
accurate the prediction and the more confident the predictor. 
 
	It should be emphasized that the predictions are accurate not because of 
the nature of that which is being sampled, but because the mathematical 
relationship between the number of samples and the number of underlying 
items being sampled is fixed and predictable. If you draw at random four 
pencils from a jar containing 100 pencils, three are white, one is red, there 
is a certain probability that the jar contains 75% white pencils and 25% red 
pencils. If you draw four golf balls from a jar containing 100 golf balls, 
three are white, one is red, the same probability exists the jar contains 75% 
white golf balls and 25% red golf balls. 
 
	If the apples in our apple barrel were not uniformly mixed, and/or the 
sample was drawn in some organized pattern, we might get only good 
apples, or at least a higher number of good apples than we would 
otherwise. The sample would be unrepresentative of the contents of the 
box and useless to the mathematician. It is very, very important to realize if 
we take as our sample 99,999 out of 100,000 apples and find not even a 
single rotten one, we can be incredibly sure we are right when we predict 
the one apple left in the box is not rotten. None-the-less when we examine 
the one remaining apple it may in fact be rotten!!!!!  
 
	A LAW IS A LAW UNTIL IT IS NO LONGER A LAW
 
	What we are building up to is the fact that the law of gravity is called a 
"law" because, in billions and billions of observations, not once has any 
documented event occurred where two objects did not attract each other 
in precisely the way predicted (we now know that gravity may not behave 
exactly as Newton thought, but like Newton predicted, objects do attract 
one another in the sense that the theory of general relativity tells us that the 
gravitational effect moves objects toward one another). We can say with 
an absolutely incredible degree of statistical certainty that the gravitational 
"force" between two objects will always cause them to be attracted toward 
one another. At this point in time there is probably less than one chance in 
l,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 10 raised to the 1,000,000,000,000,000th 
power that gravity will not act essentially as expected. Yet, despite the 
incredible certainty of gravity, we do not and cannot know whether it is or 
is not possible for one contrary event to occur, and thus for the law of 
gravity to be proven wrong!
 
	I am not suggesting the law of gravity is incorrect and that an event 
whereby it is proven wrong will ever occur. In fact I would be surprised if 
any of the basic scientific laws of the universe are fundamentally wrong. 
What I am saying is no matter how many times something has been 
observed to be true, no matter how incredibly unlikely it is an unexpected 
event will occur, we have no way of knowing if such an event is possible or 
impossible! If the unexpected event is not possible, it will never occur, and 
it will never be observed. If the event is possible, and if it does occur, then 
it has happened, period. 
 
	We must remember it is not the "law" which makes objects behave in a 
certain way, fundamental forces far beyond human comprehension do that. 
Rather the law describes the behavior and remains valid and true only until 
a single unexpected observation proves it wrong. Actually the law remains 
only apparently valid and true, if it is later proven wrong its former truth 
was an illusion. The law was in fact always false. "Modifying" a theory to 
better fit the observations does not help render the original theory true, 
rather it creates a new theory that is itself either true or false. Since 
scientific theories are tested by observation, they are true if and only if each 
and every event they describe and predict, from the beginning of the 
universe to the end, in fact occurs exactly as expected. Theories, no matter 
how solid they might seem, must be discarded as false the very first time 
they fail to describe real events. 
 
	Science is based on observation, formulation of theories, and more 
observation. To observe necessarily requires the ability to perceive - to 
sense, feel, smell, touch, taste, see, hear. Early humans used all their senses 
to explore the world around them. When human senses proved inadequate, 
they devised better and better tools and instruments to extend their range. 
Microscopes and telescopes to expand vision, stethoscopes and amplifiers 
to increase hearing, plus thousands of other sensitive devices to enhance 
the senses. 
 
	The catalog of devices used to expand our human senses is enormous 
and growing by the minute, yet all the instruments of humankind can do no 
more than extend the reach of humans into the universe of which they and 
their instruments are a part. We know of three spatial dimensions, height, 
width, depth, and a forth dimension, time (which may also prove to be 
spatial in nature). Space (height, width, depth), and “time” all exist together 
as space-time and cannot exist alone. Is there a fifth, a sixth, a seventh, an 
eighth dimension? No one knows, for if they exist they appear to be 
separate and beyond human ability to sense, measure, and thus scientifically 
prove.
 
	Does that mean those dimensions do not exist, the answer is no. 
Mathematicians and physicists use formulas to describe sub-atomic 
phenomena (e.g. - string theory) that can be interpreted as happening in 
multidimensional space. If a fifth dimension exists, it exists. If a fifth 
dimension does not exist, it does not exist. This is true regardless whether 
we can, or never can, observe that dimension and, of course, is true for any 
sixth dimension, seventh dimension, eighth dimension, etc. It is important to 
realize that no matter how many dimensions are eventually observed, one 
or more additional dimensions may or may not exist beyond human ability 
to observe.
 
	Many of you are saying to yourselves it is one thing to say that a 
dimension beyond human ability to observe may exist, but an entirely 
different thing to say that one probably does. You are right. Most of you 
will go on to say it is highly improbable, maybe less than one chance in a 
trillion, that even one more dimension exists beyond the observable number 
of dimensions, however many that may eventually prove to be. If you think 
that, you are wrong. To be able to statistically predict the likelihood of an 
event happening we must first observe to see how often the event occurs 
during a given period of time. If we cannot observe the event when it 
occurs, we cannot determine how often it happens (or conversely, does not 
happen) and we cannot predict the likelihood of the event. 
 
	One problem with recognizing the limitations of statistical analysis is 
understanding the difference between not observing an event where the 
event watched for can be observed, and not observing an event where the 
event cannot be observed because it is beyond human ability to sense. The 
first, not observing an event which could be seen, leads to the statistically 
valid conclusion that the event is unlikely to occur. The second, not 
observing an event which is beyond human ability to perceive, cannot lead 
to any conclusion at all about the reality of that event. Yet it appears to be 
human nature to assume that things which have never been observed do not 
exist, or at best are highly unlikely to exist. 
 
	If something exists beyond human perception it will never be observed 
during our physical lifetimes. If you cannot measure something because it is 
beyond human perception you cannot prove it exists, on the other hand you 
cannot prove that it does not exist! More importantly, you cannot say that it 
is statistically likely or unlikely that it exists. You simply cannot say anything 
objective at all about that which is beyond human ability to observe. 
 
	It is very, very important to realize that it is absolutely impossible to say 
that it is either likely or unlikely something exists beyond human 
observation. We simply cannot determine in any way the probability that 
something exists, or does not exist, beyond our observable universe. To 
understand the significance of this often overlooked statement is to 
understand that we have no idea what, if anything, lies beyond our cognitive 
boundaries. 

	A moments thought should bring the realization that this absolute limit of 
statistics and science renders all "scientific proof", as well as subjective 
feelings, that nothing exists beyond our perception into feeble "philosophic 
arguments". Despite what science might claim to have "proven", and 
despite what we might "feel", about what lies beyond our ability to observe, 
we cannot say anything objective about that which is beyond human 
perception. We may create mathematical models of what should lie 
somewhere just beyond observation, yet without a means of testing these 
projections they can never be more than idle speculation. We simply 
cannot say that it is likely, or not likely, that a "world" or "worlds" exist 
beyond the physical world in which we live. From an analytical standpoint 
anything, or nothing, may exist beyond human cognition.
 
	Human beings are limited to observing the effects of fundamental forces 
on matter and energy, and must draw conclusions based only on such 
observations. We can never "view" the forces themselves, forces whose 
metaphysical existence and purpose transcend human observation and 
comprehension. One of the consequences of being only a small part of the 
universe in which we live is the absolute fact that, unless revealed to us by 
the whole, we can never know if something or someone exists beyond the 
limits of our senses. No one, not you nor I nor the smartest person on earth 
can determine whether or not anything exists beyond that which we can 
observe. It follows that we cannot know if someone or something beyond 
our ability to perceive can and will alter the laws which govern our world.
 
	The significance of the continued possibility that an unexpected event will 
occur to disprove even the best of theories, and the very fact such a 
possibility will always exist, renders it impossible to "prove" anything to be 
absolutely true or false. Since even the most incredibly supported "laws" 
are always subject to being disproved by the happening of a single contrary 
event, all laws and theorems and common sense proofs are subject to 
being disproved. Fundamental precepts that apples fall, water flows, fire 
burns, may all be disproved by future events. 
 
	Our limitations not only prevent us from exploring that which is beyond 
human perception, but also add to all human observations a degree of 
uncertainty that cannot be overcome. We can never say with total certainty 
that anything is true, or for that matter, untrue. In this age of science it is 
hard for those who have not studied the scientific method in its most 
intricate details to understand that, because it is a tool of human beings, it is 
necessarily limited in its application by the limits of human comprehension 
and understanding. 
 
	It is even harder to accept that, since we are only a part of the whole 
universe, we can never determine by ourselves what the entire universe is 
like. A part of something never knows what the whole is like unless the 
whole makes itself known to the part. We can never know what is true 
unless the truth is revealed to us. Being a part of the whole means that 
every law we construct must be built from unprovable assumptions, 
assumptions that may or may not hold true in the future. We can never 
know if something, or someone, outside our perception, perhaps greater 
than the whole, will alter all or part of what we observe, rendering untrue in 
an instant the very best of our proofs. 
 
	Of course, if underlying forces do exist, are not changed, and require the 
predicted behavior, then the laws never can and never will be disproved. 
However, that does not alter the fact that it is, and always will be, beyond 
human ability to "prove" anything. There is absolutely no way human beings 
can determine if fundamental forces exist that will never change. We simply 
cannot determine if it is possible, or if it is not possible, for a contrary event 
to occur. We can never be certain that contrary events will not happen, we 
can never prove that anything is absolutely "true".
 
	YOU CAN'T BELIEVE YOUR EYES
 
	We must be sure of observations that are within the bounds of human 
perception, and skeptical if what we observe appears to be opposite to 
that which is predicted. Yet we must also be willing to recognize and 
accept valid experimental data that disproves popular theories. Scientists 
have declared many theories to be true and elevated them to the status of 
"law", only to discover that future observations, often more accurate than 
the first, proved them wrong. There are millions of examples of these 
errors. Perhaps the most famous was the early contention that the earth 
was flat, a scientific "fact" based on observations that appeared sound to 
early scholars, which should not be so surprising to those of us who live in 
hilly country without a visible horizon. What all of us, including scientists, 
must be aware of is the ease in which we convert our theories into laws. 
Even if we believe our minds are open, most of us grab onto favorite 
theories and assumptions. We think of, and talk about, them as though 
there is no doubt they are true. 
 
	We should take a minute to discuss the potentially "seductive" nature of 
misinterpreted or misused "scientific proof". A portion of my high school 
biology text described the propulsion method of certain one-cell 
microscopic animals (protozoa) through water by declaring they waved a 
tail like projection back and forth. The book had been careful to label 
many new ideas as theories, but stated this particular description in 
absolute terms since these one-celled animals had been observed for many, 
many years always moving in exactly the same way. Anyone reading the 
text would believe, as scientists and everyone else did, that there was 
absolutely no question how the animals got around. 
 
	As I was watching television almost ten years later I was surprised to 
hear of an accidental discovery by a scientist looking at some protozoa. 
Trying to hold one still under a microscope he held down the tail with a 
needle. Instead of the body of the animal thrashing back and forth as it 
should have, he observed it to be spinning around the tail. The tail was 
attached to the body by what was in effect a small rotating joint, which 
acted like an electric motor spinning a propeller. Looking more closely, the 
scientist discovered the tail was in fact shaped like a corkscrew. Because 
the microscopic view had always been two dimensional, rather than three, 
the corkscrew motion looked down on from above had appeared to be 
that of a wave. Since it was common to find waving tails in larger animals, 
and since no one had predicted, let alone observed, a 360 degree rotating 
joint, the thoughts and conclusions of generations of scientists had been 
colored by conscious and subconscious assumptions. What had been 
accepted as true turned out to be false. But remember, what was found to 
be true had in fact always been true.
 
	Similarly, I remember reading an article by a learned scientist who was 
upset when a well-accepted theory was challenged. He noted that of 
course it was a theory, just as all scientific laws are really theories, but he 
then stated that the particular theory was so well documented it was 
obviously true. It was and is not "obviously true" for, as we have seen, no 
theory can be said to be unquestionably true.
 
	The theory was the theory of evolution. Darwin's theory has become for 
many the shining example of humankind's ability to pull itself out of the dark 
ages, and thus is cloaked in an emotional blanket that associates all 
criticism of it with attacks on science. To the religious fundamentalist 
evolution is a tool atheists use to infiltrate the minds of children. To the 
humanistic scientist, evolution is a symbol of the triumph of scientific 
reasoning over myth. To most people, perhaps, it is simply a more or less 
correct method of describing the seemingly natural progression of things.  
 
	I have little trouble with the idea of either accepting or rejecting evolution, 
for I can take it or leave it as a part of the physical explanation of the 
universe which neither conflicts with, nor supports, religion or science. I 
would be quite surprised if the theory of evolution, in some form or 
another, is not essentially correct. What is troublesome is that challenges to 
evolution, and other theories scientists adopt as scientifically "self-evident", 
are often viewed as a return to the "irrationality" that preceded science. As 
such they are rejected without consideration as unworthy intrusions into 
pure science, which will go away if ignored. 
 
	Many scientists simply will not talk about anything that upsets their idea of 
reality, yet all theories do just that. When any theory is first proposed, it is 
by its very nature an extension of humankind's knowledge (whether such 
knowledge is illusory or not), and as such goes beyond the then accepted 
view of the world. So long as such extensions are orderly and slow there is 
no problem, but when they leap ahead into the future they become the 
immediate concern of scientists who wish to keep science "pure". There is 
a strong presumption that something that has not been proven is somehow 
less than true. To many people the unproved is not simply unproven, but is 
"fantastic" and worthy only of the title "science fiction". 
 
	Thus despite professed neutrality on the untested, many scientists have 
made it clear they are ready to label as absurd that which is significantly 
outside common experience and which has not been subjected to empirical 
scrutiny. If popular theories do not withstand future scientific challenges, 
recognition of their weakness will be slow to come, and acceptance of 
more exotic alternatives will be resisted with cries that the alternate theories 
are irrational myths. One should feel uneasy that correct theories, which are 
not subject to easy testing, might be dismissed as absurd. If something is 
currently "unproved" it may well be rejected by scientists as an 
impossibility, no one beyond the person postulating the theorem may dare 
dream of its truth. 

	As we have already noted, in addition to rejecting that which may be 
proved in the future, many scientists are equally willing to reject as an 
impossibility the existence of that which is beyond human perception, and 
thus "unprovable". No matter what we may think, or intuitively "feel", we 
absolutely cannot say anything objective at all about the "unprovable". The 
as of yet "unproved", as well as the "unprovable", may, or may not, be 
"true". 
 
	We should note one type of statement, the definition, which can be 
viewed as an irrefutable truth. By definition, water "boils" at 100 degrees 
Celsius. You can always define something to be what you want it to be, yet 
no matter how you define an event you will not alter the physical reality that 
makes up the event. Water "boils" at 100 degrees because we have 
defined what water does at that temperature to be "boiling". The word 
"boiling" is nothing more than a description of what happens at a given 
temperature. As a definition it is a label, which has nothing to say about the 
physical laws that affect the water.
 
	Nothing assures us water will continue to act like it does when it gets to 
100 degrees. If in the future the behavior of water changes, scientists must 
either continue to label the new activity as "boiling" by broadening the 
meaning of the word, or must coin a new word to describe the changed 
state. If water would solidify instead of vaporizing, scientists could continue 
to define the new behavior as "boiling" and no one could say they were 
wrong. Yet the new state would be totally opposite to the old, only the 
name would remain the same. Fortunately most observers recognize a 
responsibility not to use language to define away challenges to their beliefs, 
therefore they create new words to label new events. The thing to 
remember is that definitions do not explain or alter the underlying reality.
 
	REALITY IS UNREAL 
 
	We know science cannot tell us anything about the world beyond our 
perception. What then can it tell us about the reality that surrounds us? Is it 
able to give us a sturdy foundation on which to build our lives? Can it 
answer our daily questions? We will explore a bit of modern physics to see 
just how stable, or unstable, science really is. The information in this section 
is based on generally accepted theories at the time of writing, please note 
that by the time you read this book these theories may have been replaced 
by equally exotic scientific descriptions of reality. No matter what 
millennium you live in, you will be able to discover and recognize the 
absolute limits of science.
 
	If we are to accept our observations of falling apples as proof of the law 
of gravity we must first assume several things, for instance, that our eyes 
accurately perceive the motion of the apple, that our ruler accurately 
measures the distance the apple travels, and that our watch correctly 
records the time it takes for it to drop. If confronted with the question 
"does the ruler you are using shrink and grow if you look at it while moving 
at different speeds?", most of us would laugh and say to ourselves of 
course it doesn't, a fixed length is what makes a ruler a ruler. We would 
think the person asking the question would have us questioning whether the 
apple is real. 
 
	Indeed I would have you question all "scientific facts", for a scientist 
named Einstein shook the assumptions about distance, time, and space that 
scientists had relied on for thousands of years. In his theory of relativity he 
"proved" the length measured on a "perfect" ruler and the time measured on 
a "perfect" clock vary according to the relative motion of one object to 
another. 
 
	Because the change in length and time is unbelievably small where relative 
speeds are slow, as in the case of a falling apple observed by an 
earthbound viewer, we can ignore the affect of relativity on everyday life. 
None-the-less the effects are real and sensitive instruments have confirmed 
them. Because our eyes cannot measure any difference does not alter the 
effect. The affect on a ruler becomes so great when relative speeds 
approach the speed of light that what was measured to be a foot would 
actually become a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of an inch. 
 
      Time is also affected by relative motion. If an identical twin could 
travel to another planet and back in a spaceship that flies at speeds 
approaching the speed of light, on return to Earth the space traveler would 
find that he or she had aged much less than his or her sibling. Perhaps the 
astronaut who left at age fifteen would be only twenty years old when he or 
she returned, while the earthbound twin would be ninety! This is not 
science fiction, the radical results predicted by relativity have been 
confirmed by countless experiments, including experiments where atomic 
clocks placed in jet planes ran slower than their earthbound counterparts!
 
	Here is another example of an everyday "fact" taken for granted as being 
absolutely true. What is the shortest distance between two points? Without 
hesitation the answer for many, many years was "a straight line". The theory 
of relativity tells us the universe may be shaped like a piecrust with bumps 
and valleys. Thus the shortest distance between any two points in the 
universe, whether it is between towns on earth or stars in space, must be 
drawn on the surface of the lumpy crust (the area outside the crust is 
outside the universe and does not exist) and, therefore, must be slightly 
curved! The curvature is so infinitesimally small it cannot be easily 
observed, none-the-less the shortest distance between two points may be a 
slightly curved line! 
 
	Over the last few decades, some of the things which have been 
discovered are that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing 
(energy = mass times the speed of light squared); the speed of light is 
constant and nothing can go faster than that speed; as matter approaches 
the speed of light it becomes infinitely massive and shrinks in its direction of 
motion to become infinitely small; and at the sub-atomic level matter is 
neither a particle nor a wave but is incomprehensibly both. There are 
several excellent books written for non-scientists that explain relativity and 
other topics in modern physics.
 
	Another foundation of modern science, quantum physics, appears to offer 
a description of reality that is radically different from the one relativity gives 
us. Laws that operate at the subatomic "quantum" level provide 
probabilities of observing one of many possible results instead of giving a 
single observable solution to a problem. Quantum mechanics is a relatively 
new branch of science developed to explain why subatomic particles do 
not behave according to the Newtonian and relativistic laws that describe 
the behavior of "normal" size objects. 

	Just prior to the time subatomic particles and events were first measured, 
physicists had declared that, with very minor exceptions, all the 
fundamental forces and laws of the universe had been discovered and 
described. When scientists started to apply the traditional laws of physics 
to nuclear reactions they were literally amazed to find that the laws did not 
work! The search was on for a way to modify Newton's and Einstein’s 
laws to explain the new phenomena. At the time no one knew the 
explanations would shake the very foundations of western knowledge.
 
	Light is made up of energy in the form of "photons" which have mass (in 
motion) and which behave like particles, SOME OF THE TIME. The rest 
of the time photons behave like waves of energy, similar to ocean waves. If 
you will think about an ocean wave you will realize water making up the 
wave simply moves up and down, not forward. Only the wave itself moves 
forward. Thus if a boat is sitting a mile from shore, each wave will cause it 
to rise and fall, but will do little to move it toward shore. The boat will 
move a bit as each successive wave exerts a slight pushing force in the 
direction of the shore, but the boat won't be carried to shore by any one 
wave as the wave itself sweeps toward land. The vast majority of the water 
is simply moving up and down, while only the wave moves forward. 
 
	The problem occurs when you try to measure photons using different 
tests. Some tests detect "particles" of light hitting targets while other tests 
detect "wave" interference when light passes through narrow slits. Back to 
the ocean example, when two ocean waves meet they either cancel each 
other if the trough of one overlaps the crest of the other, OR they reinforce 
each other when the crest of one joins the crest of the other, forming a 
single doubly big wave (or any combination in-between can occur). When 
two waves interact they are said to be interfering with each other. 
 
	The problem is a particle CANNOT act like a wave and a wave 
CANNOT act like a particle, yet photons act like both! The solution of 
modern physics to this apparently unsolvable problem is to say that 
photons are neither waves nor particles until they are measured, and that 
the measurement itself determines the nature of the photon. In other words, 
it is the measurement of the event that determines the nature of the event. 
 
	To some degree this phenomena can be said to express hidden problems 
with what reality really is. In a sense physics is not able to describe the 
"reality" of an individual photon since it appears to have two inconsistent, 
coexistent, yet separate, natures. To the extent the point at which a photon 
is measured (known as the collapse of the wavefunction) can be 
considered an "event", an unsolved dilemma occurs in determining when the 
event "actualizes". If light is both a wave and a particle until measured, is it 
"truly" a wave (when measured as a wave by an interference experiment) at 
the point it interferes with itself, or at the point it strikes a photographic 
plate, or at the time the film is developed, or at the point a human observes 
the final picture, etc.? The answer is simply not known.
 
	One of the greatest philosophical shocks of this century came in the form 
of the Heisenberg uncertainty principal. As far as many philosophers were 
concerned the last straw was when, to help explain the observed 
phenomena, Heisenberg noted that if you measure the momentum of one of 
the particles ("momentum" is velocity, which is speed in a given direction, 
times mass) that make up an atom you must in some way affect its position. 
For example, if you measure the momentum (or velocity, the uncertainty 
principal is equally true for both momentum and velocity) of a subatomic 
particle by "observing" it move over a given distance, the observation alters 
its position in some unpredictable manner. Similarly, if you measure position 
you must alter momentum, thus at any given moment you CAN NEVER 
measure both the exact momentum and exact position of a subatomic 
particle. The more precise you are in measuring momentum, the less 
precise you will be about position, and vice versa. The problem is actually 
more than a problem of measurement, to be more accurate, the wave 
function of a subatomic particle (which describes the particle at the 
quantum level) that has not been "observed" is precisely determined 
(without using probabilities) by a formula known as Schrodinger's wave 
equation. However, the very moment you attempt to measure the 
momentum or position of the particle, the wave function collapses, 
introducing probabilities into the equation, and the exact momentum and 
position of the particle CANNOT be determined. 
 
	Heisenberg's theory can be interpreted as supporting the proposition that 
at the quantum level the very concepts of momentum and position have no 
real meaning. At the level of measured observation, modern physics can tell 
you how many particles in a group of particles have certain momentums 
and positions, and how many have other momentums and positions, but 
physicists CANNOT tell you what the momentum and position of any one 
particle is. This failure is far more than just some inability to measure 
momentum and position, it is due to the fact that it is fundamentally 
uncertain what the momentum and position of any single observed particle 
is! A single particle when measured simply does not have position and 
momentum in any normal sense of the words, but members of a group do, 
and the probability of x number having x momentum and x,y,z position can 
be precisely computed! 
 
	One interpretation (there are others) of this finding is that nature appears 
to determine the behavior of its "particles" by a flip of a coin. Einstein spent 
the latter part of his life attempting to disprove this disturbing idea, it flew 
against his concept of the universe and prompted him to say, "My God 
does not throw dice". Yet he was unable to disprove quantum theory in 
general, and the uncertainty principal in particular, both of which have 
correctly predicted every subatomic event that they have been tested 
against! 
 
	To emphasize the significance of the uncertainty principal remember it 
says that the uncertainty about momentum and position is not due to 
limitations on humankind's ability to make measurements, but rather is 
based on the apparent fact that when observed the momentum and position 
of an individual particle is fundamentally uncertain. Of course, future 
physicists may find an underlying set of rules that can be used to predict the 
behavior of individual particles, or may discover a fundamental unified law 
which is consistent with the observed behavior. Einstein's discomfort may 
well have been the result of human limitations on his understanding of God. 
Even though many questions remain unanswered, repudiation of the 
uncertainty principal, however comforting it would be to philosophers, 
seems uncertain at best. 
 
	One current theory, which we mentioned earlier, that is popular among 
cosmologists and that would eliminate the uncertainty, shows just how 
confusing and exotic the universe may be. The truly wild (and from some 
scientists' points of view, virtually unbelievable) "many-worlds theory", 
suggests that every time an event occurs which has a possible required 
alternative, the universe splits into two identical parts, except that in one 
universe one alternative occurs, while in the other the other alternative 
occurs. According to this theory (or at least to the most popular 
interpretations of it), there are potentially an infinite number of identical, 
except for the required alternatives, versions of each of us living 
simultaneously in different worlds. Uncertainty is eliminated because every 
alternative is guaranteed to occur. Rather than being a model of reality, this 
idea may be a product of human limitations. 
 
	If you want some more disturbing news I can give it to you. There is a 
controversial extension of quantum physics that deals with the problem of 
"locality". Components of atoms have a property called "spin". Spin is one 
of the fundamental quantities in the universe that must, and we do mean 
must, be conserved. For each particle that possesses positive spin, there 
MUST exist a particle with negative spin. When two such particles fly off in 
different directions from an atom, they always have opposite spin. 
 
	So far, no problems. We can "entangle" the particles and change the spin 
of one of them. The very instant we do so the other particle's spin changes, 
no matter what the distance is that separates them! Physicists, who accept 
that a problem exists, are at a loss to explain how a particle in a different 
location without any means of communication knows what another 
particle's spin is. It is a mystery how one particle knows to change spin at 
the very instant the spin of the other particle is altered (experiments seem to 
confirm the phenomena, however there may be a hidden variable that 
would explain the observations by extending current theory). 
 
	Einstein believed that any "rational", in the sense of "objective", 
description of nature is incomplete unless it is both a local and realistic 
theory. A theory is "realistic" if a particle has "intrinsic" properties that exist 
even before they are measured. A theory is "local" if measuring the 
properties of one particle cannot affect the properties of another, physically 
separated particle, in a length of time that would require "communication" 
between the particles that is faster than the speed of light. Yet quantum 
"entanglement" of spatially separated particles may require that realism, or 
locality, or both, be violated! 
 
      One highly speculative explanation of entanglement eliminates the 
normal assumption of "locality", the assumption that events occur at one 
specific location in the space-time continuum. If it is possible to have a 
rational description of the universe without a local theory, then you can 
have events that appear to be occurring in different locations actually 
occurring in the same place. Thus, no matter how far apart they may seem 
to be, two particles could know each other's spin because they are, in 
some as yet unexplained manner, in the same "location". Perhaps the two 
particles occupy the same position in some unknown dimension where 
there is no such thing as separation. Speculation about the significance of 
lack of locality is really unproductive, except to note that lack of locality 
could help explain premonitions and extrasensory events.
 
	Other complex examples of conflicts with accepted concepts of reality, 
truth, and classical philosophy and logic, are found within the fascinating, 
unsettling, discoveries of modern physics. We are left with fundamental 
paradoxes, the solutions to which are totally unknown. Indeed, despite 
what we are told by many scientists, it is not at all clear to those working at 
the leading edge of scientific inquiry that an objective physical description 
of the universe actually exists. The destruction of traditional concepts of 
time, space, matter, energy, of life itself, is both frightening, and hopeful. 
Given the dramatic efforts of modern physics to unravel the mysteries of the 
physical world, coupled with the possibility of the discovery of theories that 
better explain space-time (or atemporal space), perhaps even the 
discovery and/or existence of other "dimensions", all manner of 
extraordinary event may eventually be explained. Yet it is also possible 
that, despite appearances to the contrary, the universe does not have an 
objective and/or observable fundamental physical nature, and that no 
explanation is possible. 
 
	Again we need to remember that all theories owe their credibility to 
repeated statistical successes. Even in the case of generally accepted 
physical laws, like the ones we have just discussed, one observed deviation 
would result in the probability of the theorem being correct going to zero. 
When a theory is for the first time shown to be false it is not merely more 
likely to be false, IT IS FALSE. On the other hand, the more observations 
reported which confirm the predictions of a "law", the higher the probability 
is that the law is true. No matter how many observations are made, the 
possibility will always exist that the law is in fact false.  
 
	A brief comment on the creation of the universe and the laws themselves. 
At the time this book was written it was generally accepted that all of 
space-time was created at or near a point in time popularly known as the 
"big bang". By the time you read this, science may have discovered a better 
description for the beginning second of the cosmos, but the possible 
implications of current knowledge are too interesting not to mention. 
Entropy is a measure of disorder. If a glass of milk turns over, the milk will 
pour out onto the table, yet one will never see milk flow from a table back 
into the glass. This is because the entropy (disorder) of the system tends to 
increase over time. Another example, you may pour cream into your coffee 
to lighten it, but the cream will never remove itself to make the coffee black 
again. As a rule, complex systems tend to become more disordered over 
time. 
 
	The universe we live in is a place of amazingly low entropy, were it not so 
we would not be alive. Each of us is an example of a highly ordered, low 
entropy, system. Every star, planet, rock, tree, living creature, everything in 
the universe that is more ordered than the diffuse interstellar gas clouds that 
surround us, is an example of a system with varying degrees of low 
entropy. It is generally accepted that for our universe to have the extremely 
low entropy it now has required as the "starting point" at the big bang the 
selection of a virtually infinitesimally tiny volume of the total phase space of 
all possible universes (phase space is a complete mathematical description 
of any physical system). 

	To be more exact, the universe we live in apparently began at a point 
constituting approximately 1 part in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to 
the 123rd power of the entire phase space volume of all possible universes! 
This is a deceptively large number, which in fact cannot be written out! If 
you tried to write it out by writing the number "1" on a piece of paper, you 
would have to write a 0 on every single atom in the universe just to 
approach the number of zeros that follow the one, even then you would not 
be close to writing out the entire number. This amazing requirement for the 
initial condition at creation suggests that the odds are no better than 1 in 10 
raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power that the universe in 
which we live was created by random chance. If the math holds true, and 
this interpretation is as logical as it seems, it may mean that the chance that 
the universe was created at random is about as close to impossible as one 
can get! Perhaps so, perhaps not.

	Many find comfort in believing that, even if science has not yet discovered 
all of the laws, every physical event from creation onward evolved 
according to a set of absolute physical laws. The mathematically precise 
physical structure of the universe, the tiny place we have in the incredible 
vastness of space, the biologic characteristics we share with animals, etc., 
all may be interpreted as evidence of a purely mechanistic process that 
governs our lives. Yet if we consider the complexity of that which we 
observe, and if we are honest with ourselves, we cannot escape the 
intuitive feeling that there is an "order" in the chaos that cannot be explained 
by science. 

	Even if the odds against the random selection of the total phase space of 
all possible universes that is required for the observed entropy are not quite 
as impossible as they seem, we simply cannot ignore the intuitive feeling 
that the odds are almost infinitely against the random creation and existence 
of all of the following: a) matter and energy and the physical laws that 
govern them; b) the expansion of the universe from a tiny speck to the vast 
expanse which we see today; c) the defeat of entropy and the combination 
of matter and energy in exactly the right way to form every object in the 
universe; d) inanimate chemicals structured in precisely the correct way to 
create "life"; e) biologic processes that give the human species 
consciousness at a level that supports rational thought; etc. Think about this 
for awhile. No matter how strongly we may feel that life is the result of 
physical processes only, if we are objective we must admit that it intuitively 
seems virtually impossible that a purely random physical process could 
create the almost infinitely complex, yet extremely well ordered, low 
entropy, universe in which we live. 

	While it seems that the underlying laws of the universe could not have 
been created by chance, I have no explanation why it also often appears 
that the observable physical universe deterministically evolves according to 
complex statistical laws. I don't know why reality is such that life appears 
to many as nothing more than a complex, biologic process, riddled with 
physical imperfections. I am not willing to say with certainty that the 
universe does not appear to exhibit many of the characteristics of a physical 
entity devoid of the non-physical. None-the-less, I am convinced that there 
is little, perhaps no, objective statistical support for the conclusion that the 
world in which we live is the result of purely physical processes. No matter 
how hard we might try to ignore them, we are confronted by astronomical 
odds against random selection of a set of initial conditions that could create 
a low entropy universe that exhibits the complexity of our universe. We are 
faced with a mystery that, if we are honest with ourselves, at the very least 
leaves us with the possibility that the observable physical universe is not "all 
there is". 

	It is very, very, important to understand that, no matter what you may 
have been told or what you may think, no human being has any idea 
whatsoever what the fundamental physical nature of the universe really is. 
The consensus is that our universe began as a single, almost infinitely 
massive, almost infinitely small, "speck". As of this date, no one has been 
able to comprehend, let alone explain, the mechanism during the 
microsecond of the Planck epoch that allowed the universe to expand from 
a dot smaller than an atom, into the billions upon billions of stars that fill our 
universe. Anyone who takes the time to try to visualize billions of stars 
bursting out of a pinhead, will realize the impossibility of making "sense" of 
what appears to be a scientific fact. No one has a clue how to understand 
the reality of a quantum particle that is quite literally "everywhere" at the 
same time. No one knows how the "action at a distance" that relativity 
suggests cannot occur, actually does occur, if it really does. No one knows 
how to define or quantify "human consciousness". There is only one 
scientific deduction we can be relatively certain of, and that is that human 
beings do not know and understand the fundamental nature of physical 
reality. 

	What all this tells us is that we have no real idea at all what the true nature 
of our life on earth is, or what the possibilities are for our continued 
existence after death! We are so much a part of the tiny portion of universe 
in which we live that we seldom realize the significance of our limitations. 
Instead of viewing our lack of knowledge as profound and exciting, we 
tend to accept with curious apathy that there may be far more to our 
existence than we know. 
 
	At this point in our journey I am not trying to suggest that anything exists 
beyond our perceived universe, nor am I trying to suggest that nothing 
exists beyond our known universe. I am not suggesting if we survive the 
grave we will find ourselves in some dimension beyond the one we can 
sense and measure during our physical lives, perhaps so, perhaps not. Nor 
am I suggesting we can never sense and know about that which lies beyond 
the grave, if anything, until we experience physical death, perhaps so, 
perhaps not. 
 
	What I am saying is scientific study and statistical analysis are absolutely 
limited to that which we can observe and measure. The absence of 
scientific proof does not make it less likely, nor make it more likely, that 
something, which is true and real, lies beyond human observation. The 
important thing to remember is that no matter how likely or unlikely you 
"FEEL" it is that something exists, if it is beyond human ability to observe, 
you CANNOT "KNOW" if it is likely or unlikely that it does exist. 
 
	This is true for the probability of the existence of life after death. From a 
scientific standpoint we simply cannot say it is likely that life after death 
exists. It is equally true that we absolutely cannot say it is likely that life 
after death does not exist. While scientists may offer attributes of physical 
death as proof that human beings do not exist beyond the grave, the real 
answer to the question lies beyond human ability to scientifically prove, one 
way or the other. Indeed, we cannot say anything objective at all about the 
possibility of life after death. If life after death does not exist, it does not 
exist, period. If life after death does exist, it does exist, period.
 
	Many of you will read what we have just discussed, agree with it, and 
then let it fade out of your mind as you move on to whatever comes next. If 
what we are saying is true, it is fundamental and “profound”. Perhaps it will 
be important and helpful to you later on when we discuss what may be the 
most important choice in your life. For this reason we urge you to think 
carefully about what has been said, being certain you understand what we 
are talking about. 
 
	WHY?
 
	Before leaving our discussion of the scientific method, we should note the 
interesting, apparently absolute, limit whereby the question "how" becomes 
the question "why". Let's jump ahead 10,000 years, and assume that a 
unified field theory has been discovered. A unified field theory is a theory 
that describes the behavior of all forces and elements according to a set of 
fairly simple laws. If and when such a theory is "proved" we may in fact 
have succeeded in explaining the past, present, and future behavior of all 
observed matter and energy. However the ultimate questions will remain. 
Why were the unified forces that control energy and matter created? Why 
do they exist? Who or what is the source of such primordial forces if they 
are the most fundamental of forces? These will still be unanswered, and it is 
not hard to see, will remain unanswerable. 
 
	Science will have succeeded in fully describing the forces seen in nature, 
and their effects on matter and energy. The question "how" forces work 
will, for the most part, have been answered. But an explanation of the 
creation, the existence, the source of the forces, the answer to "why" such 
forces exist, will be missing. The ultimate question, "WHY?", most clearly 
defines the limits of science and human beings. 
 
	Without realizing it, we constantly bump against this invisible wall that 
surrounds us and limits our knowledge. We know that the force of gravity 
causes objects to be attracted to each other, but why is this so? Think 
about it a few minutes. Obviously gravity needs to exist to prevent objects 
from flying apart, but why not have a gravity that is half as stro