THE LOGICAL PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH

This paper attempts to prove, using logical analysis, the existence of continuity of consciousness beyond the discontinuity of physical death. In other words, this paper proves the existence of life after death, also known as life after life.

For some, this knowledge is a foreign and vague concept which due to misunderstanding is unconsciously assigned some convenient probability of truth. In reality, a person who seeks the answer ultimately finds only two choices, true or false. People who do not seek the answer do not get the answer.

Logical analysis is a tool which reveals the structure of a concept, including the critically important foundation of the concept; the fundamental postulates. Logical analysis is used to expose obscure truth. Theories can be presented as structured forms which facilitate understanding.

As a theorem, the continuity of consciousness beyond the discontinuity of physical death, can be analyzed and logically reduced to fact or fiction.

The process is to present the theorem as a series of constructs which build on themselves. Logical analysis can be applied to the point where no further simplifications or reductions can be made. What remains are the fundamental postulates. Since the fundamental postulates may not themselves be provable, one has to validate them personally to be able to decide, yeah or neah to the entire theorem.

Logical analysis can be taken to various levels of dissection. But at each level the part which has not been analyzed, the remainder, is presented and can be decided on. Any time the remainder is found to be true then further analysis of the remainder will only present more closely scrutinized truth.

If you prefer not knowing the result of the analysis then, take a break, come back later. It will be here if you ever need to change your mind.


The following is DRAFT VERSION 3r5 - Comments, questions, suggestions, corrections or any other well intentioned communication are welcome and appreciated. e-mail: proof@easy-web.com
FURTHER BACKGROUND

The foundation of a concept is composed of fundamental postulates. Fundamental postulates, also known as, axioms, are assumable self evident truths. An axiom itself may or may not be provable, but the self evident nature of an axiom satisfies the need for its own proof. The acceptance of the analyzed concept can then be based on the acceptance of these fundamental assumptions. Just as a foundation of a building stands firm on its own, so do the fundamental postulates. The proof of a theorem by logical analysis provides the evidence on which a theorem is understood to be true without further question. To understand without question is to know, and to know is to believe, and belief discovers faith.

This paper attempts to enrich faith through understanding. Proofs by logical analysis can be applied to various concepts. For people who have a strong understanding of logic and yet have little faith, logical analysis can de-mystify seemingly esoteric concepts. People versed in math and science have a strong belief, even faith, in the method of proving a theorem logically. For these people, the proof presented here may be a revelation, because their existing faith in logical analysis may be used to reveal the foundation upon which their faith stands. Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of things not seen. Faith is the acceptance of fundamental postulates. After performing logical analysis, the fundamental postulates remain as the things not seen, which must be accepted in order to accept a theorem. Fundamental postulates can be thought of as the tiniest of all ideas, a quantum of an idea, which cannot be further dissected or logically reduced. These are the building blocks upon which larger concepts are built.

Fundamental postulates cannot be proven and can only be accepted on faith. Belief in the tiniest of all ideas is a very powerful faith builder. The exercise of identifying the fundamental postulates is an exercise of identifying faith. If a person can see, visualize, understand or accept on faith tiny fundamental postulates then faith in monumental statements follows.

Propositions are not fundamental postulates. Propositions are statements that need to be further analyzed to show proof relying on fundamental postulates. Given the proper skills in the use of logical analysis propositions are reduced to fundamental postulates. However if a proposition makes sense to a particular reader then the validity of the proposition can be taken on faith. This is useful when logical analysis has not been applied to a given proposition in support of a theorem. Since this paper is under development not all of the propositions have been logically reduced to the fundamental postulates. Therefore, when a proposition is stated without proof, it must be taken on faith. In the paper, general discussions are offered to aid the reader in "seeing" the validity of the propositions which have not been further reduced logically.

Once understood, the proof can be used, as a base upon which a person can build a belief system, and can be used to solidify a person's present faith by eliminating doubt. A person who has faith already may still have doubt. Elimination of doubt is very important. 


INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL ANALYSIS

Theorems are statements or hypotheses which can be proven through logical deduction. The proof of some theorems relies upon the existence of two conditions; the necessary condition, and the sufficient condition. To show the validity of both conditions is to show the validity of the theorem.

Standard definitions of the necessary condition are,
1. a proposition whose falsity assures the falsity of another proposition;
2. a state of affairs that must prevail if another state of affairs is to occur;
3. PREREQUISITE.

Standard definitions of the sufficient condition are,
1. a proposition whose truth assures the truth of another proposition;
2. a state of affairs whose existence assures the existence of another state of affairs.

The necessary condition shows that the contraposetive of the theorem is not true. The sufficient condition shows that the reasoning is broad enough to cover the existence of the entire theorem. When the validity of both the necessary condition and the sufficient condition can be shown for a particular theorem then that theorem is shown to be true.

The following is the definition of contraposetive: a proposition or theorem formed by contradicting both the subject and predicate or both the hypothesis and conclusion of a given proposition or theorem and interchanging them; i.e., "if not-B then not-A " is the contrapositive of "if A then B ".


THEOREM SUMMARY


Overview of the Life after Death Theorem and the required propositions for logical proof.

Theorem: Human experience is continuous beyond the physical discontinuity of death.

Proposition required to validate the necessary condition:

Propositions required to validate the sufficient condition: The goal of this paper is to show the above propositions supporting the necessary and sufficient conditions to be true, thus showing the theorem to be true.


LIFE AFTER DEATH

The question, "Is there life after death?" is probably one of the most intriguing questions asked. If you have any doubt about the existence of life after death, perhaps the following logical proof will help you resolve this question with a resounding "Yes!".

THEOREM: Human experience is continuous beyond the physical discontinuity of death. 


THE PROOF OF THE NECESSARY CONDITION

NECESSARY CONDITION: It is necessary that a dead body is NOT physically capable of supporting a human experience.

Consider the opposite statement of the necessary condition -- a dead body is physically capable of supporting a human experience. If the state of being dead produced a human experience then one would experience it at the moment of death, at the moment after the first moment of death, at the second moment after death and at all moments to come. The dead person would then remain experiencing death forever; there would be no other experience beyond death. Therefore, it is necessary that a dead body cannot experience being dead in order for the person to move on to the next experience.

Whether or not you believe a dead body is capable of producing a human experience relies entirely on your own understanding. I personally believe that a dead body has no human experience otherwise the body would still be alive. Some people have experienced being revived from a death -- for the sake of simplicity I chose to classify this special case with bodies which are not dead. When I say a dead body I mean a dead body.

FAITH BASED FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE 1: Death is the absence of a human experience.

In other words the set of all human experiences does not contain death. Even if some argue that death is an experience then it is inconsequential, because one can not be aware of it. A person moves through the set of human experiences and when the person lands on death it does not register. Death is always one of the next closest physical conditions among the next possible condition of any body, yet it is the farthest human experience for any other experience.

The fundamental postulate required for the proof of the necessary condition is the definition of death. The definition of death results from observations only. We can observe a body which has returned to ashes and answer the question; can those ashes sustain a human experience? Thus, by observation, death is defined as the absence of experiences due to the lack of physical resources for life.

PROOF OF THE NECESSARY CONDITION: By definition, a dead body is not physically capable of supporting a human experience.

This proof is classified as a proof by definition and is plain and obvious; even though I have unintentionally managed to make it seem complicated. This technical description of the proof belabors such a simple idea. Yet logical analysis requires that the proof be treated formally as attempted above. Thus, the validity of the necessary condition for the proof of life after death is shown. 


THE PROOF OF THE SUFFICIENT CONDITION

The sufficient condition is more complicated than the necessary condition. The sufficient condition requires the proof of one proposition and two fundamental postulates concerning the nature of life; the following needs further reduction to get these numbers.

Propositions require further proof in order to be reduced to fundamental postulates. But given time restraints and my ability to develop the logical analysis from propositions to fundamental postulates, this proof may require the reader to add the faith required to take a proposition as truth. Effort will be made to reduce each proposition by further logical analysis.

PROOF BASED PROPOSITION 1: To any experience there always exists a next closest experience.

The proof of Proposition 1: The necessary condition for proposition 1 is accomplished through negation of the inverse proposition.

INVERSE PROPOSITION 1: To any experience there never exists a next closest experience.

If the inverse proposition 1 were true, then it directly implies that there is only one human experience, and all human experiences are exactly the same. Because, if there exists two human experiences, then by default, the second human experience would be the next closest human experience. Therefore, since we know from observation that there exist more than one human experience, the inverse of Proposition 1 is false.

FAITH BASED FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE 2: There is more than one human experience.

The fundamental postulate above is used in the proof of proposition 1 is that there is more than one human experience. This postulate is plainly obvious and does not require further logical proof.

The sufficiency of Proposition 1 can be proven by showing that all human experiences have a next closest experience. Or in other words there is not a human experience to which there is no other next closest human experience. Take each experience separately, then associate one with two, one and two with three, and on and on, each experience added to the set of experiences has at least one next closest experience. The rules that define closeness are arbitrary and there may certainly be more than one set of rules by which to judge which experience is the next closest experience to any other. So under different rules different experiences will be the next closest. Some scientists have defined entropy as a tool of measuring the next closest state in terms of energy changes. This paper is not concerned with the choice of rules but the proof requires that rules exist. If there were no rules then each experience would be as close to any other experience as any other experience. One can see that, no matter what criterion is used to determine closeness, no matter how different each experience may seem, the next closest experience to any experience always exists.

Aside: Death does not have a next closest human experience because it is not a human experience. By definition and as shown in the necessary condition above death is not part of the set of human experiences, death is the lack of any experience.

On a very general basis, one can see that to any thing there is always the next closest thing. Just as at least one next closest painting to any other painting always exists, so also does one person exist who is the next closest to any other person. This can be further developed to show how rules affect the choice of next closest entity. For example, the next closest person could change from moment to moment depending on the choice of the rules.

[ All of these arguments are independent of the definition of time and space, or any assumed relationship between time and space. ]

FAITH BASED FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE 3: There exists a finite amount of error in any measurement.

Example postulates such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

FAITH BASED PROPOSITION 2: The human body is an instrument with inherent limitations and weaknesses.

At this point in the development of this paper a logical proof of proposition 2 has not been completed. A discussion of this proposition is offered to help the reader determine the validity of the proposition through faith of their own personal observation. The rationale behind this proposition are the following. The human body is limited in its physical ability to observe its environment and is limited in its physical ability to experience the rate of change of ones environment. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies to all human experience as a fundamental error of observation. The human body can be considered to be an instrument which measures the environment in which it exists. As an instrument the body produces an experience as the measurement output. All instruments have accuracy limits. The human body is no different. There is a finite amount of difference between two situations that will produce the same experience. Just as different instruments produce different results to the same conditions, the same instrument will produce different measurements to the same external conditions, and the same instrument will produce the same measurement to different conditions. Different people can have the same experience under different conditions, likewise different people can have a different experience under the same conditions.

FAITH BASED FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE 3: Life is a sequence of experiences.

[ Definition: human experience; a sequence of events large enough for a person to perceive change. ]

Proposition 3: Two physically separate people with the same experiences are equivalent, i.e. they are the same person, the two are one. The error of observation can also be associated with the equivalency principle. There is a level of physical changes that occur in person's environment which are not detectable by the human body. That is, there is a set of one or more physical states of the environment which the human perceives to be identical. For example, on a microscopic scale the human being cannot experience each quantum change in ones environment. The microscopic rotation of a water molecule in the air has no effect on a person's macroscopic experience. On a macroscopic scale, a meteor about to hit, or a meteor not about to hit, an unaware person produces the same experience. For both the macroscopic and the microscopic level, the physical differences between the example situations are not great enough to produce different experiences within a person, and are therefore perceived to be the same.

FAITH BASED PROPOSITION 4: The error of observation increases to accommodate for the difference between one experience and the next closest experience.

As the next closet experience becomes more significant in difference then the error of observation required to not notice the change increases. Thus in healthy physical life the difference between one state and the next closest state is very small. Entropy is has been defined mathematicians and scientists as a measure of the difference between two states. The the error of observation must be greater than the change in entropy to achieve continuity of consciousness. So even the most perceptive persons do not register the event occurring. Life seems to be a continuous stream. When after all quantum mechanics tells us fundamentally that life is not a continuous stream, but comes in tiny quantum changes.

The closest sequence to experiencing a change in the sequence of experience that is detectable is the waking from a dream suddenly. But even this situation produces a flowing response.

One could die quickly and without warning which in the extreme case would make the next closest physical reality the next closest experience in which the person did not die suddenly.

If a person ages slowly and dies slowly then in the extreme case there is time and probability that would make any situation equivalent; because the error of observation would increase greatly. In this case the question of a bipolar or tripolar of good, evil, indifference, would come into play. Then any rule of measurement would have a plus, minus, or 0 value that would be equivalent.

And in addition every person will have the opportunity to reach this slow choice situation, because all the instantaneous deaths will still lead to the slow or second death. It seems that this second death is where people true nature will come out. Will you relate to the positive, the negative, or the indifferent.

The final proposition that is required for the sufficient condition is the following. As the human body approaches death, the error of observation increases, and the body's ability to distinguish one situation from another decreases. That is, different external environmental changes produce indistinguishable internal experiences. As a person approaches death the passage of time becomes less observable. The person's physical environment becomes less important to the person.

When all these propositions/postulates are combined the following results.: Because your life is a sequence of experiences, because the next closest experience to any of your experiences always exists, because death is not the next closest experience to any experience; it is sufficient that the error of observation increases to allow continuity between experiences including continuity of consciousness beyond the physical discontinuity of death. 


EXAMPLES OF CONTINUITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS BEYOND THE DISCONTINUITY OF DEATH

The following illustrations are examples of a continuity of experience across a physical discontinuity. Consider that you are at home, in bed, and having a dream. Say for example, that in your dream you are paddling a canoe on a lake. It is assured that at some time and in some place there is someone who has, who is, or who will be paddling a canoe on a lake. Perhaps there are many people who have, who are, or who will be paddling a canoe in real life. At least one of these real situations is the next closest situation to your dream at any given point in the sequence of the dream. The next closest experience other than your own may change at any point in the dream sequence. No matter how different, there is always at least one and perhaps more actual experiences had by actual people that are within the error of observation (error of perception). Now consider that as you are dreaming your dream of paddling a canoe, a nuclear bomb actually goes off above the head which you are using to dream with. The blast destroys you in a quantum sequence that is shorter than your perception of the situation. In terms of time, the death occurs so fast that there was not enough time for the brain's chemical response to acknowledge the situation. But the next closest situation to your experience still exists some place at some time just as it did before the bomb destroyed you. Therefore that situation is the next event experience in the sequence of experiences called your life. Since you cannot wake from your dream you continue on paddling in the real canoe someplace sometime. In a death sequence that is not smaller than the error of observation; when a person knows that they are dying, the error of observation increases the closer one is to death because there are less resources for one to observe with. Therefore, at some point the error of observation will be great enough so that the dying person's experience will be equivalent to some other experience somewhere. Then, since human death is always a one way physical process you can only continue on in the next closest experience. Consider another situation, say that you are actually in a situation where you are about to be killed. You are in a war and are about to be blown up by a hand grenade. Someplace somewhere sometime someone has had, is having, or will have the next closest dream experience to what you are actually going through. Just when it seems that the grenade is about to go off, the next thing you know is that you have woken from your dream and are saying to yourself, "I'm glad that was just a dream." Again, another situation, say that you are having a dream, and in this dream you are being chased by a car and are about to be run over by it. You wake from the dream with relief. You may or may not be aware that someone actually physically had, will have, or is having that next closest experience.

Now consider that instead of waking and feeling relief, that instead you remained asleep and in your dream by some miraculous course of events, the car's tire blew out and you were saved from the car. Well, just as someone always has the next closest death sequence someone will have the next closest escape sequence. If the person who was running from the car was too busy running to perceive himself to be in the next closest escape sequence, then he relates to you and your dream and then from your dream to the actual place where a person like him was saved from a situation like the one he was in. Here, the required error of observation to get to where he needed to be was larger than the error of observation he was capable of having by his own effort, so you were the middleman, so to speak.

APPLICATION OF PROOF All of this is very fine but it can turn ugly. Say you "Woke up" from an actual death situation into some horrible situation. Well the theory above shows that this is possible. But there is good news. There is someone who loves you more than you know, and He is always thinking of you. So much so, that He is always the next closest situation to you. But it still requires an effort on your part to relate to this person. You still can relate to anything you want and at some point you have to equate yourself to Him so that He can track you. A person that hates you can track you within your error of observation just as a person who loves you. In any given situation your error of observation permits both the right person and the wrong person to be a possible next closest situation. This person who loves you saves you from taking a sub-optimum path past death and is also capable of saving you from a sub-optimal path while you are alive also. Not only that, but you do not have to wait for death to track His love. You can start doing it at any time.

A given error of observation implies equivalence to a given set of people and places. Yet you have no idea how to or what to do to make you the happiest and most joyous you could possibly be. Therefore, trust in the communication from God. You have a choice, you can perceive yourself being under God's care or you can perceive yourself not under God's care; both are within your error of observation. I am not aware of a means to prove that there are actual channels of communication; which would wrap up the proof and give power to the theorem. What is required is that a person has to knock for this door to be opened. It is by spiritual revelation alone that you will have the proof of the promises.

Then there are other things that we must consider as in what part do we play in the salvation of ourselves. Since we cannot do it ourselves separately we have to do it for each other as a unity. And that is the purpose of a Christian. To do for Jesus what Jesus wants to do for us. That is by giving ourselves, we give Him the resources to effect changes in the world, resources to dream dreams, to live, then He can have the resources to save people and to do allot of things. I would not feel comfortable about trying to get to the optimal next experience on my own; for I do not even know what it could be. Sure, something better may be possible, but why settle for something better, when one can get the best. That is why it is best to hand it over to someone who does know what is going on. Apostle Paul said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh, This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church, really this is a profound mystery, I am speaking of Christ and the Church.", EPH 4:31. It is the body of the Church through whom Christ will be made manifest in the physical world. That is the Church gives life to Christ and Christ gives life to the Church. One may ask how does all this take place? Well there exists a form of communication that cannot be seen, heard, tasted, felt or touched, but rarely we are given a glimpse of the communication abilities we have through He whom we are One with. The reason I am so confident of this, is that I have been blessed with numerous direct experiences of this communication. Some refer to it a psychic, and perhaps this is what I am referring to. All I know is that there is something more out there than most people are even willing to admit. 


(OTHER IDEAS) - The following are rather undeveloped ideas, submitted to generate further interest in the subject matter; perhaps with the unfortunate side effect of increased confusion temporarily.

{ Your last experience is the closest branch in the web of your eternal life. At some point in your life you made a turn for the worst. Up until that moment in your life you were traveling along the most blessed path. Perhaps this is where one ends up at the end of the path that was not so ideal. The continuation would always bring the individual back to this point of departure earlier in the life. Then this would continue until the path was completed successfully. }

{ Another consideration helpful in clarifying the following discussion are the time and space dimensions in which life exists. One premise is that time is not an issue. Also, the location in space is not an issue. Time and space are relative, that is there is no absolute reference. Two unconnected events remain unconnected. If an event occurs once, it has always occurred and back when it occurred it is still happening. If the universe is static; i.e. if each event always exists, then God can destroy anything that He desires at any time. If the universe is dynamic, i.e. if each event exists for some quantum moment only, then He merely has to choose to forget an event, or have no memory of an event to destroy it. Another consideration is dimensionality. The human experience can be dimensioned with a complex vector space, both real and imaginary parts. The real part is what is actually taking place in the real world. The imaginary part is what is taking place in a person's mind. Since all perception and experience takes place in the mind then all experience exists in the imaginary plane. An experience is a functional transformation or mapping from a physical coordinate onto the imaginary coordinate. Memory is a physical mapping onto the imagination. }

{Aside: The existence of memory may show that the universe behaves as the front of a cloud; the front is changing dynamically yet the middle of the cloud is static. The surface of a cloud can be seen, but what used to be the front is now the middle. Yet the middle of a cloud still exists. Nature may be that way. An event occurs. At the time the event occurred it was the present. If something does remain behind in a static sense then what remains is a static picture of a dynamic event. If one were to relive the past because it still existed, then the relived moments would still seem like the first time it had occurred because when the event was frozen it was frozen at what seems to be a moving present. This then counts for nothing because one cannot distinguish the event as except for its having occurred but only once. Memory may be a physical mapping to the static events of the past. }

{ Dreams are of use in showing, by example, continuity of conscious experience across a discontinuity in the imagination. }

{ The human imagination is a real physical process. The imagination is a real dimension in the human existence state space. Perception is a transformation or projection of the response to physical stimuli and of the imagination. Waking from a dream is an example of discontinuity in the creative imaginary plane. Death is a discontinuity in the physical plane. Yet both are discontinuities that are projected ultimately onto the perception dimension. }

{ Another consideration is the equivalency principle. Two system exactly alike are equal systems. Two system that are similar within the bounds of the error of observation are also indistinguishable from one another and are therefore considered equivalent. }

{ People who are one with Jesus the Christ are one with him in spirit, through the Holy Spirit. Christians should be of like mind, having the mind of Jesus Christ. This is an example of different instruments producing the same output independent of input.}

{If something exists now, then, will that something exist then now?}

{If something happened and then did not exist at that original time later; would that something ever have happened? In other words, if something happened at time t1, then later at time t2 what happened at time t1 did not exist; then would what happened at time t1 have ever existed?. The answer would be that if what happened at time t2 was a causal result of time t1 then yes t1 still exists. But if t2 was not dependent on t1 then no it does not exist, or if t1 does exist then every other situation that t2 does not depend on also exists.}

{ Assumed is a physical base upon which to build. Given the acceptance of the first and second laws of thermodynamic. And the zeroeth law, absolute zero. And the entire physical structure. Time-Space relationship. The fact that entropy always increases, and the next closest place to anything can be determined by comparing entropy values, given that there are no absolute entropy values. }

{ Definition: Othergy; energy or other form that exists in a single moment in time which cannot to be observed nor characterized experimentally. The existence of othergy may explain psychic and spiritual experiences. Psychic and spiritual experiences may indicate the existence of othergy. }

{ Limit infinite. A stumbling block for many is the presentation of infinite as a boundless entity, when in fact nothing is boundless. infinite cannot exist nor is infinite necessary. A very very large finite is a sufficient and comprehensible infinite. The infinite is limited to everything excluding nothing. }

{ Rapture, connecting with the collective best by a parallel set of next closest experiences any one of which is smaller than your error of observation. }


Peter Depew Fiset, 5 Upper Loudon Road, Loudonville, NY 12211-1635 USA
International FAX/TEL. 518-436-0485
North America FAX/TEL: 800-EASY-WEB, (800-327-9932)
e-mail: proof@easy-web.com
e-mail: peterfiset@easy-web.com

Copyright 1985, 1996, 1997, Peter Depew Fiset, all rights reserved.

March 19, 1997. 


A reader e-mailed me a series of questions; He wanted to know what the purpose and meaning of life was. I found that to be a valid question since in the paper I am dealing only with basic mechanisms and I have not touched on anything that might be personal. So the following link is my response to the question: What is the purpose/meaning of life?


My apologies for the unfinished state of this paper, but I feel that if I don't do something with it then that would certainly be worse; that may or may not be true, but that is how I feel. For a further explanation of this feeling please visit the following link: The Math Class


This page accessed more than 3600 times since May 16, 1997.