Oh, Anon, no... there is no other side...
This is it.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Oh, Anon, no... there is no other side... This is it.
Oh, Anon, no... there is no other side...
This is it.
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
I don't even like Bojack but that scene was taking place in his mind as he was dying and was basically just his consciousness confronting his own beliefs in death. I don't think it was meant to be a definitive statement on the afterlife.
Fricked up either way.
I think that's the thing. Instead of ghosts, these turn out to just be an atheist having a dream, so of course he dreams of there not being an afterlife. But it's not special confirmation if by definition this isn't supernatural.
>well that's just, like, your opinion, man
No shit
I believe consciousness to be an emergent property of brain activity the same way higher logic is emergent in organized transistors or music is emergent in individual vibrations. When your brain stops working you're gone, turned off, annihilated. When the band stops playing the music ceases to be. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't change forms, it simply ends.
I believe we stay dead until the death of the universe, then it resets and so do we.
Big crunch and re-bang is one theory but it has little mathematical or evidentiary weight. Heat death without the compression necessary to create a new singularity is far more likely
>If buddhists are to be believed
They're not.
>Big crunch and re-bang is one theory but it has little mathematical or evidentiary weight. Heat death without the compression necessary to create a new singularity is far more likely
Okay then. What do you think?
....heat death without the compression necessary to create a new singularity.
Eventually the stars will burn out, the last bit of energy that isn't gravitational will be transformed into entropy and the endless expansion of the universe will distribute every particle uniformly at absolute zero. Eventually even black holes will cease to exist as all energy gradients disappear and the universe becomes totally inert.
And then?
And then it remains inert, in a a state of complete energy equilibrium
Forever
Sounds boring.
It's not boring, boring is a property of information and in a universe with jo energy gradients there is no information
Plus you'll be dead an unfathomable amount of time before that happens.
I always wondered what would happen to a human if it suddenly appeared in such a perfect vacuum as the universe in 10^(10)^(500). It's crazy to think that future where it's all death is guaranteed
There's actually a theory gaining traction that that perfect state of energy equilibrium is virtually identical to the hypothesized state of the universe mere moments before the Big Bang, and in fact heat death is just the final stage before the next universe is born countless eons afterwards.
You're confusing the heat death energy equilibrium with big crunch, the theory that the mass in the universe is great enough to reverse the expansion of spacetime and cause a crunch back into a singularity
It doesn't work with the universal constants we know, but we can't rule it out entirely as we can't know for certain that those constants are truly fixed.
No he's not
Anon those are two different theories, you seem to be like 5 - 10 years behind recent developments in physics.
>the universe came from nothing and will end for all eternity
I'm an atheist but this theory just makes it sounds like there must be something beyond the universe.
>The universe came from nothing
No it didn't and no one said that
what existed before the big bang?
The "What's All that Creaking?".
>What existed before the singularity from which spacetime and thus the concept of "before" sprang
Your question is nonsensical.
How is even possible that any of those events happened then? Shouldn't everything remain "static"?
>Any of those event
Which events?
>Shouldn't everything remain static?
No
>The universe sprang from nothing
No, it didn't. No one says this.
>We don't know if there was a before (the big bang)
We do because the concept of "before time" has no meaning.
Your inability to understand physics does not invalidate the science.
>That's what the moron misunderstanding a theory they won't name is saying
Cool, ignore them.
It's worth noting that saying "before time" is nonsensical and that the most likely end of the universe is heat death doesn't invalidate the idea that there might be other universes or nested universes or holographic universes
Physics is concerned with what is falsifiable and observable and another separate universe with its own separate spacetime can't be observed or falsified.
>Physics is concerned with what is falsifiable and observable and another separate universe with its own separate spacetime can't be observed or falsified.
I think that's the entire point the anon you're responding to was trying to make dude. That we should be agnostic about a "before" rather than say with certainty that there is or isn't one.
If there is another separate spacetime then it cannot be "before" or "after" this one.
Before or after is giving a relative position in a dimension, like "4 is before/left of 5" on a number line. A separate spacetime is a different line entirely.
There's literally no way of knowing if there was time before the universe with any of our tools that we currently have at our disposal or not. Time is currently assumed to have originated at the Big Bang, this is absolutely not a guaranteed aspect and physicists will readily and openly admit that there could have been universes before ours, yes in the context of them having their own conceptions of time. Nor does the idea of the heat death of the universe necessarily mean that all things end from there on out with no possible way of anything new emerging. Quantum tunneling over such a long period of time is literally theorized to have the potential to create new big bangs right now, those other anons couldn't name a theory but there's a different idea for you. Both quantum tunneling and fluctuations are both theorized to be possible beyond the point in which the universe has otherwise achieved heat death.
>Y-you can't know there isn't some other spacetime!
That's what I fricking said you simpleton.
>Quantum tunneling and fluctuation post heat death
I finally got a google hit on your fricking rambling.
The idea of quantum tunneling a false vacuum into a true vacuum is an incomplete theoretical model that isn't even at the point where it has any testable observations whatsoever
And even if it weren't it's talking about a universe with no matter, no particles. That's not the suggested state of heat death.
>I finally got a google hit on your fricking rambling.
That was literally my second response in this thread, hence why I said "those other anons". You're getting really heated over this and it's clear you have some emotional stake in what you're arguing about now, not even gonna bother with you anymore. You're the kind of person that would vehemently defend Galen in the 18th Century.
Bye felicia
>That was literally my second response in this thread, hence why I said "those other anons". You're getting really heated over this and it's clear you have some emotional stake in what you're arguing about now, not even gonna bother with you anymore. You're the kind of person that would vehemently defend Galen in the 18th Century.
God I love that smart people on Cinemaphile argue pretty much exactly like dumb people on Cinemaphile argue, just with a different subject matter
>You're the kind of person that would vehemently defend Galen in the 18th Century.
>You're the kind of person that would vehemently defend Galen in the 18th Century.
I don't know what the frick that means but it sounds like some kind of slam dunk own, it's weird seeing people that actually have some kind of brain post here. Because I sure don't.
Galen was a doctor in Greece that went against divination as medicine
Defending him in the 1700s would be weird since he was into four humours stuff and that fell out of favor in the 1600s (germ theory was in the 19th century)
Four humors stuff was still really regularly used until the early 1800s and Galen still had his proponents well into the late 19th Century. It took a long ass time for medicine to get past his shit. George Washington likely died because of his physicians following Galen for example.
't everything remain static?
>No
How the frick did anything happened without time? How do you "start" if there was no time?
You keep thinking of time as a series of moments in the past, present and future, when it's actually more defined by the innate state of thermodynamics at any given moment. It's defined by the state of change between one energy level and another. If the entire universe is thermodynamically static, there is no change of energy levels of any kind. You cannot measure any kind of meaningful change, therefore time as a concept ceases to be.
NTA but I always felt like this was a shit copout. The universe sprang from nothing with no cause because and will fade into oblivion forever with no possible chance of another happening? Just total oblivion on both ends with only our creation alone in all that span of infinity and nothing else could possibly have been before or after? Bullshit. Even if we're the first time this has happened that doesn't mean it's the only time it could possibly happen, arguing that is just as asinine as arguing there is with certainty going to be a rebirth of the universe. We don't fricking know if there was a before or if there will be an after, acting like these are totally known points of argument is utterly idiotic.
We don't know if there was a before or if there will be an after, quit acting like you specifically know the exact terminus of all things.
But
is saying exactly that. We're already treading into territory only God is really privy to, so why not toss out things like causality and time as a concept? The math has already gone loopy, your only choice is to embrace the maddness
A video i saw described a theory where when the universe reaches that state, it becomes a new singularity because with no matter and a universe of only photons traveling at the speed of light, distance no longer has meaning. Infinite distance becomes zero distance.
This sounds like the kind of math where you make 1 = 2 by ignoring that one of the variables you divided by to get there was 0.
It made more sense when they explained it but it's absolutely a fringe theory.
There's actually a theory that at the total breakdown of all possible interactions is when a new universe emerges, because absolute maximal entropy would effectively render time moot and thus make the difference between zero possibilities and all possibilities irrelevant via time itself ceasing to serve any function. Not like we'll ever possibly know though, there won't be anything around that can possibly observe a total zero state universe because by definition there won't be any possible observations or changes occurring.
>There's actually a theory that at the total breakdown of all possible interactions is when a new universe emerges
There are several possible oscillating or cyclical universe theories
>absolute maximal entropy would effectively render time moot and thus make the difference between zero possibilities and all possibilities irrelevant via time itself ceasing to serve any function
I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense.
It's not complete nonsense and it's becoming an increasingly held view like
pointed out in the actual world of physics. The idea is that if no changes can occur that the universe is effectively timeless, and is thus in a state right before the big bang because that's the last point where there was no time. It's basically putting things back to square zero. I'm trying to explain it in a really basic way because this is Cinemaphile but look it up, it's actually a pretty interesting concept. Zero state being effectively pre-Big Bang state.
>it's not complete nonsense
It is, the words you typed have no meaning.
>like
pointed out
He's talking about big crunch, which has nothing to do with your word salad. I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just telling you that what you said is nonsensical.
>The idea is that if no changes can occur that the universe is effectively timeless
That's not what time is
>and is thus in a state right before the big bang because that's the last point where there was no time
A nonsensical comparison because even if it were true there's an enormous difference between an inert universe where every particle is spread uniformly through an infinitely expanding spacetime and a singularity.
>nuh-uh!
Ok then, give me a name of the theory because whatever it is you're referencing you clearly don't understand it well enough to convey it.
No but I'll give it a read
He's talking about heat death being equivalent to events moments before the big bang, it's literally exactly the same thing I'm talking about and has nothing to do with Big Crunch. Pull the cotton out of your eyes anon, you seem really set on this not being a thing.
You're not saying anything
Give me the name of the theory you're pretending to understand
You can't have a big bang without a singularity
That's what we're trying to get thru to you: newer thinking is that you actually can have a singularity spontaneously appear in a zero energy equilibrium state. Basically when things return to square one, effectively, quantum fluctuations kick in and you get one or more Big Bangs out of seemingly nothing. In fact it's thought that the true state of the greater universe is that perfect energy equilibrium, and that we exist in a temporary "bubble" of stuff that occasionally pops up.
Does it make sense that you can get a universe from nothing? No, but it's no more a fantastical idea that literally everything was smaller than an atom once
>Newer thinking is that a perfectly dispersed universe at absolute zero will spontaneously become a singularity
No, it isn't.
Heat death is not square one.
>The true state of the universe is no energy gradients
No.
You're mixing up a lot of disparate ideas like quantum foam spontaneously generating a matter/antimatter pair
Give. Me. A. Name.
Also a universe post heat death is not nothing and still has spacetime
>Give. Me. A. Name.
Happy Matter Space Clackers Theory for Breakfast
Literally how the frick do you get the Big Crunch from "that that perfect state of energy equilibrium is virtually identical to the hypothesized state of the universe mere moments before the Big Bang, and in fact heat death is just the final stage before the next universe is born countless eons afterwards."? That's the exact thing
is talking about almost word for word. I don't know the name of it at all but I've heard of it too.
>No but I'll give it a read
So how was it?
Sad, mostly.
Yup, one thing I don't like is how it kind of forces it's beliefs on you.
I don't disagree with what they said but it's not forcing anything on you - just expressing this person's belief (and trauma)
>As far as we know—really, truly know
Yeah
It kind of does force the belief on you.
>I'm trying to explain it in a really basic way because this is Cinemaphile but look it up
Shut the frick up moron. You don't know shit. You're copypasting a summary you heard on some science Youtube video and think you understand quantum mechanics, but in trying to type it out you realized you had absolutely no clue what you were talking about so you pivoted into "but I'm speaking to a bunch of le dum dums so I no bother xD" to try and hide that.
If Buddhists are to be believed, your consciousness never actually stops, you just keep going into whatever new form is next for you. You as an individual being ceases, yes, but the core "you" as it were never stops ticking. You just keep living and dying until you actually sit down and try to break the cycle via nirvana
Did you write this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/nosleep/comments/di8xqm/ghost_stories_make_us_feel_shit/?rdt=41483
2 deep 4 me.
Nobody asked Captain Fedora.
And the whole "lOgIc iS eMeRgEnT iN oRgAniZeD tRaNsIsToRs" pseudointellectualism is actually part of the basis for theological arguments in the universe having a grand designer.
But of course the soapboxing dipshit doesn't stop two seconds to consider that people thought the same crap as him before and already analyzed the problems with it and had decades long before he was born approximately 14 years ago.
>Logic being an emergent property of organization is the same as the designed world horseshit
You don't know what the word emergent means.
Let me help you:
An atom cannot be wet
A molecule cannot be wet
Macroscopic objects organized of atoms and molecules can be wet
"Wet" is a property of the interaction and organization of atoms and molecules
"Wet" is an emergent property.
>You don't know what the word emergent means.
You don't know how to form a coherent argument, or any of the debates onto the existence of what "logic" is.
>Durr durr durr atoms cannot be wet, therefore wet is emergent
The problem with your sperging, because the obvious that you're trying to be pedantic about definitions instead of addressing the actual crux of the argument (that some abstraction can consistently exist outside of the human mind but still be broken down into human terms and replicated with human thought), is that you're trying to liken it to some descriptive property beyond "true" and "false." But the simplest tautology out there is a self-evident "true," meaning that you're trying to say that "logic" is emergent from what can be a statement synonymous with its only component. It's not "an atom is wet," it's "an atom is an atom."
>You're being pedantic!
No, I'm explaining a concept you clearly don't understand.
>You're saying the concept of logic is emergent
Oh dear lord
No
Jesus Christ
Computer logic is emergent from transistors, literally.
>Abstract/emergent things can't exist without the human mind!
That's moronic. A sphere would be round if no intelligent life existed.
>No, I'm explaining a concept you clearly don't understand.
You're literally trying to argue about a specific definition instead of offering up anything of actual worth you spazzing Redditgay.
>Computer logic is emergent from transistors, literally.
>EEEEEMMMMEEEERRGEEENT!
Shut the frick up you moron. You're trying to play some gay-ass semantic game with a little bit of tumblrgay "I CAN'T EVEN" as if the methodology behind how a transistor works is just some completely magical whim that isn't at all a physical causality chain by electricity shooting into it. Saying it's "emergent" when talking about the physical object is like trying to say that pushing a rock makes "emergent" behavior.
Your metaphor sucks at both demonstrating its point and when taken at literal face-value.
You fundamentally won't move past this dilemma because you're not smart enough to know how to.
things can't exist without the human mind!
That's literally the opposite of what I just said:
>that some abstraction can consistently exist outside of the human mind but still be broken down into human terms and replicated with human thought
>can consistently exist outside of the human mind
Maybe you should stop being a projecting moron and actually address the shit people are saying to you, that or stop having arguments with voices in your head "emergent" from your schizophrenia.
It's funny, because I do mean that it's a physical causality chain you fricking idiot
>Ackshually...
Yeah, just like "is something wet" a causality chain at all.
Frickin' Hell... two seconds of introspection before posting. That's all I ask from you.
That was a dumbed down example to help you understand, like teaching a child there are three states of matter
You literally understand the metaphor, that transistors build a causal chain that forms a logic that doesn't exist at a lower fundamental level
Yeah, a dumbed-down example that... isn't at all just what you just said you were trying to describe?
Do you have anything other than ad hominems and just restating the same brainrotted shit that's already been addressed?
>that transistors build a causal chain that forms a logic that doesn't exist at a lower fundamental level
Do logic doesn't exist in a more fundamental level because transistors don't break down logic further than what we observe in terms of how we expect electricity to function when placed through conditionals.
I just want to make sure that's what you're going with this time.
things can't exist without the human mind!
>That's moronic. A sphere would be round if no intelligent life existed.
Minor mistake in
.
I should have quoted the "sphere would be round" line. I didn't read that greentext because I saw that it was some shit that I didn't write, saw your words which tried to contradict a point I never made and reinforced what I just said, and went along with it.
>No, I'm explaining a concept you clearly don't understand.
tbh I've been watching this thread but man the degree to which you're sure you understand things and that other people don't is really kind of jarring. Maybe you're some other anon and if so I'll readily admit to it, but this thread is wrought with a line of "I am correct and you are incorrect" that feels like it's coming from the same source. And yeah some people can be moronic but like, the sheer level with which you're sure that you're correct about theoretical physics is weird man.
>You don't know what the word emergent means.
>Let me help you:
>An atom cannot be wet
>A molecule cannot be wet
I don't say this lightly anon;
Say sike right now.
>when you die there is nothing
wow youre so profound, how did you come up with this? you are the first person ever to do so
I don't think he's trying to be profound. What other conclusion can you even make?
Far as I'm concerned, death is a problem for future me to deal with. I'm just trying to stave it off best I fricking can on any given day
the after life never made sense to me. but i've seen and heard so many strange things that i guess ghosts are real
I don't get why if you got eternal afterlife and the ability to rattle chains why you'd spend all that time rattling chains at Scooby-Doo. If ghosts are real, why don't they finally write that novel they were always thinking about?
>The ghosts in Scooby Doo are real
I don't want to post spoilers, buuuut...
In Thirteen Ghosts they were fricking real, and none of them wrote a novel. They just keep making excuses to put it off? Did Shaggy need to be terrorized? No. But anything to put off that novel.
I actually saw two threads on /tg/ just recently with jokes that made me laugh. I almost wonder if there's something going on, like someone terrible but prolific across Cinemaphile died and suddenly we can do normal threads again. We'd have to see if it holds, though.
I hope that's the case and not just a room full of anons(monkeys) striking gold again. No one should have to dig through this site for a fun read.
>Tfw centuries old authors start publishing themselves from the grave.
>Tfw they start mogging the frick out of all the other living writers of our time.
It just isn't fair.
Meant for
>A chill squall enraptures the DC Comics board room meeting.
>The executives grip their chairs in tension, eyes wide and 300 DPI goosebumps
>A shape from among the fog forms
>A member of the old guard whispers a name as the face starts to form, completely awestruck...
>"Kentaro Miura..."
>"HEERRRO, THEY STIRR MAKE-A BERSERK, SO I'M HERE TO MAKE-A BERSERK 2!"
>The executives hush-hugh among themselves
>"AHA, JUST KIDDING. I HAVE OTHER IDEA!"
>One of the board room members starts clambering up.
>"G-Great. Always happy to have a legend giving his pitch. So what do you have in-"
>"KIRRER CROC!"
>"Uhm... what?"
>"KIRROR CROC EATING SEXY WOMEN. BRONDE. HE EAT SEXY BRONDE WOMEN AND RIPPA THEY GUTS OUT!"
>"Miura, sir, I don't think that's going to go over well with-"
>"AND THENA HE WORKS FOR DARKSEID WHO MAKES A PLANET OF PEEPEE MONSTERS THAT RAPE THE JUSTICE REAGUE WITH KRYPTONITE PENIS AND FRICKIN AND MURDER METROPOLIS!"
>"Sir, can you please-"
>"AND THEN SUPERGIRR GET HER CRITOROUS TOUCHED BY MARTIAN MANHUNTER. WE CARR IT 'KIRRING JOKE 2.'"
>"Please leave before we call an exorcist."
>"AHAHAHA, YOU CARR REDEEMER? THAT IMAGE COMICS b***h. I ARREADY PITCH THEM GOOD STORY TO WIPE YOUR ASS OFF THE SHERVES!"
>"Sir, he's right, as of this morning Image Comics and Dark Horse have taken 80% of the western comic's market share. They're... they're growing the industry!"
>"What, how!?!"
>"AHAHAHA AND ON PAGE THREE YOU HAVE THEM CALL JON KENT A homosexual."
Good fricking shit, anon. You had me dying in my chair.
>Please leave before we call an exorcist
I'm using this phrase in some fashion in the future.
>In Thirteen Ghosts they were fricking real,
Have you seen the 13 Ghost movie? Velma proves the ghosts in the TV show were just Himalayan hallucinations
Not canon.
Who the frickity frick is actually going to read it, much less publish it?
Other ghosts would read it. There's ETERNITY. You'll binge everything you wanted to see on Netflix within a week, so unless your fellow ghosts are willing to entertain, now you've got nothing else to do.
It's not so much the desire to read it, more the actual logistics of pulling it off that gets me all held up. Being unable to physically write would be the first hurdle to cross
Anon, have you never heard of a ghost writer? They can write books, they're just not allowed to legally use their own names because of ghost laws. They have to use pseudonyms, like "R.L. Stein".
Yes but those are actually written by physical, tangible people. A ghost in and of itself cannot interact with normal matter, at least on long term scales
How do you know those were tangible people. A talented ghost would be able to do a very good job at sounding like a living person because they have a lot of time to practice.
And as other anons are saying, you're dead for eternity, so even if you interact with a keyboard for a hundred years in one sitting, in the eternal length it's basically a short time.
Fair enough, tho I can't imagine a novel written over the course of literal centuries by someone disconnected from life in the most meaningful way imagineable would be considered the pinnacle of literature.
That's why ghost writers typically get hired to write autobiographies. It's because it's the study of a living person, which is an ongoing source academic curiosity for ghosts.
People will pay for art made by a chimp/elephant, so they'll probably read a novel written by a ghost.
Personally, i go a step further. Consciousness is a fundamental property of existence. Everything is conscious on some level, but individual consciousnesses arise in systems of high complexity and randomness. Imagine a knot in string. The knot is its own object. When it stops being a knot, it's just part of the string until you tie another knot. It's a different knot but still the same string. In that sense we never really end, but we also never really begin, we just always were.
>Panpsychism
If you think about it, it's the only thing that makes sense. We have no way to scientifically distinguish conscious beings from unconscious objects. So logically, everything must be conscious.
Dumb assumption. The force behind life is simply a phenomena we can't currently observe. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that everything must have life. After all, completely dead things (like, if a person was crushed by a bus or an animal was fossilized in mud) can't regain life, so we know that there are things that no longer have it. So what we DO know about the phenomena is that it is in fact, temporary, because it cease. That is the current limit of the observation.
Entirely inorganic material has never displayed the few observable traits of life, such as procreation or independent motion, yet you give it the invisible trait because "well we can't tell the difference yet". It's entirely assumption, we should never ASSUME something as important as life itself. It's a frustrating grey area, but just saying "everything lives" is a childish conclusion based entirely around that which we are unable to know. I bet you love televangelists.
> concsciousness an emergent property
You can't get semantics or qualia from arrangements of matter. Look up Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment (yes I'm aware Searle does a cop-out saying this doesn't apply to brains, but that's clearly inconsistent since neurons are arrangements of matter just like computers are). Look up aristotle's argument for the immateriality of the soul, which is similar in that it points out how conceptions are irreducible to matter formations.
Pure reductive materialism (and even non-reductive physicalism) is a dead philosophy from the turn of the industrial revolution that hasn't really been relevant philosophically since the death of logical positivism.
It's a slave ideology meant to keep redditors fixated on consumerism and the poor on drugs and corn syrup
>Look up babby's first "we MUST be more than that!" argument
I read them a very long time ago and they're shit
Ok NPC
after everything that has just casually happened past these 3 years, better keep having your opinion, because God forbid I have to put up with your poor sweaty fat ass if you repent at the last minute when the biblical apocalypse shit starts to take place.
Oy vey
I'm not afraid of your fakakta fanfiction
Ever since I was 12 or so and watched a documentary (can't remember exactly what about but I imagine it must have been relevant to this topic) I've believed that the afterlife, near-death-experience, "life flashing before your eyes" or whatever else you wanna call it has to be the brain freaking out and reaching out to everything it can in desperation, from memories to ideals to the subconscious, mixing it all and whatever it can put together is the "afterlife" you get. I've had dreams that felt like days but lasted only hours or minutes according to my phone's time, so I have no trouble believing a dying brain can put on a coping facade of what feels like a whole eternity.
Granted this to me has also always implied that people that die instantly in accidents where the brain is crushed or exploded basically have no afterlife whatsoever. Newborns also, if they happen to die on birth or shortly after, must have no afterlife, or I can't imagine what that must be like. Both notions fricking terrify me, but I digress.
So this episode of bojack was the finale for me. I never watched the actual final episode, but I've read about it so I know what actually happens. Bojack's brain putting on a show while slowly fading was great and I prefer that ending.
>I've had dreams that felt like days but lasted only hours or minutes according to my phone's time, so I have no trouble believing a dying brain can put on a coping facade of what feels like a whole eternity.
I've always thought this was kind of possible too, I once had a dream that lasted "week" in the dream itself but only was about 6 hours at absolute maximum. I could see your brain creating an effective "eternity" in some kind of panicked state to try and give it more "time" to resolve the issue at hand, even if it's overtly terminal. And hey, if there is an end you won't even realize it! There's that last delusional moment where you're in your "afterlife" and then it's over and you wouldn't even realize it.
Did this change any of Light's beliefs?
Who knows. Maybe not.
Just cemented his determination to win which made his defeat much more humiliating.
I thought he already guessed that the meaning of Ryuk's statement was that Heaven and Hell simply didn't exist. In the manga anywho. In the anime he's just silent on the matter.
Anime had one of the commercial break Rules pages say that everyone went to Mu.
No, the Death Note mentions that whoever uses it can neither go to heaven nor hell, but Light realizes this is a bluff and that people all go to the same place anyway. So it makes him act exactly the same because he was already acting under the notion of there being no afterlife. There IS an afterlife in Death Note but it's just a totally neutral state, effectively only semantically different from there not being one.
Debatable, Light admits that using the death note causing him to insomnia and made him lose a lot of weight due stress.
Getting a confirmation that there's no afterlife probably fueled his beliefs
There is an afterlife though, it's just nothing. There wouldn't be shinigami if there wasn't some kind of afterlife you goofus.
>I have money in my bank account you moron, it say 0.00 right there
Yeah that's basically it. Like the other anon said way earlier in the thread it's effectively no different than there being no afterlife so it's kind of just semantics, but there is an afterlife in death note. You just get the equivalent of eternal oblivion anyway.
Riuk is not obligated to tell the truth
Doesnt Matter anyways since the show itself proves that the death note posseses the user to some capacity forcing them to use it, every character who uses the death note admits that it gives them an urge to kill, even tho they never say it to the camera it's obvious, it's evens Ls last deduction before dying
Isn't that just a "power corrupts" theme?
Depending on how canon you consider it, Death Parade supposedly takes place in the same universe as Death Note.
Death Parade doesn't have a real "afterlife" per se. But it does have a purgatory that either leads to reincarnation or total oblivion. But that's based more on your temperament than your actions as a person.
Which is at least mostly consistent with what Ryuk said about the afterlife.
Sounds fake and Gay. The Lord is real, Jesus died for my sins, and you were a pitiful man.
Stop wasting your time here
but he's got to convince us his religion is right and everybody else's beliefs are wrong or the skyfather will punish him eternally!
"The View from Halfway Down" poem is legitimately the most unnerving thing I've seen from modern animations.
Because it rings true. The handful of people who survived jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge said they regretted the decision the second they made the leap.
Death is final. Life has options. Simple as
For me it's not just the subject matter or the delivery, it's the door inching closer, creeping up on him as he reads and panics
I liked how he reached an apparent ending of the poem but hastily kept going to delay The End for just a little while longer.
I remember in the sequel novel to The Chocolate War, one of the boys has resolved to kill himself and jumps off a bridge and we hear his inner monologue as he's falling, and it's basically instant regret and furiously apologizing to and calling for his mother to help him.
Between that and the protagonist of the first book being so utterly defeated, I was pretty impressed as a tween reading them.
Wait it had a sequel? Could you spoil it? I remember really liking the first book
Truth be told I don't really remember the details of the plot, and I'm having a heck of a time finding a good summary of it.
It's called Beyond the Chocolate War.
Logically none of these dead characters could come back to haunt Bojack if there was no afterlife. You can conclude this was either Bojack's delusion, or Bojack is going to hell and all this was a small taste of Bojack's personal hell. He feared insignificance a lot, and death being the ultimate form of insignificance would have been torturous to him. Suppose there was an afterlife, but for Bojack it's being alone and gone from the world, with the knowledge you are alone and gone.
There's not a lot of reason to think Bojack was going to heaven. The show tells you why Bojack is fricked up, but the dude was still a morality train wreck.
Anything "deep" this show did in this episode was undone by the fact that Bojack didn't die.
>Life sucks, and then you die
>Maybe it's more like, life sucks, and then you keep living
Bojack dying as a means of repentance wasn't the point, it was about how he finally had to face the overwhelming consequences of his actions. Dying would have been the easy route, and the show tries its damndest to make you realize that "easy" doesn't always mean right.
Life is a gig economy. If you do well, you might be called back to Live part 238xsß}d!}s}fr$}sr7f:~
Of course, you are competing against all pajeets of all history, but a vivid composition takes all colors.
So has anybody actually come back from the dead and really seen what happened? Or was it just the brain playing tricks minutes before going blank?
Depends on your definition of death. Many testimonies share having seen a white light or seeing things but it had been stated that it could be just allucinations caused from oxygen deprivation
Plenty of people have been revived minutes or even hours after technical death, their responses range from literally nothing to random visions to visions that line up suspiciously with their exact religious beliefs. It's so unreliable that it's not regarded as decent testimony and more likely just near-death brain activity.
I hated how on-the-nose this was. It just couldn't resist directly explaining what it wanted its audience to understand. You could say it insists upon itself.
Imagine unironically saying a FG meme
Say what you will about the rest of the show, but the experimental episodes usually hit. I don’t think the show ever topped the episode with Bojack’s eulogy about his mom dying.
>Why the Long Face never got an extended release
>Bojack Horseman thread
>It's just an intelligent discussion about physics and metaphysics
By the way, I highly recommend the Book "Logos rising" as a general history and overview of metaphysics
>Logos rising
>Logos Rising: A History of Ultimate Reality describes the tragic and yet ultimately triumphant progress of Logos in human history, from the beginning of everything, to the emergence of the concept, to the Democratic primary of 2020.
Amazing.
>to the Democratic primary of 2020.
>triumphant progress [of logos]
This is a joke, right?
I gotta be real I have no fricking clue why the author thought that was a good thing to put in the description. He spends like, 3 pages out of a 700+ page book having an old man gripe about Pete Buttigieg because he was once mayor of the town he lives in. It's really just a generalized history of metaphysics.
>read this thread
>realize that I'm really dumb
me sad
Everybody is dumb, that's what Socrates said, or maybe I misunderstood him because I'm dumb.
Cinemaphile - Death Note and the Ultimate Fate of the Universe
I misunderstood and thought this episode was the last episode of the show and it fricked me up. I had seen it while already experiencing a mental break. It made me obsessed with the poem they read. I was suicidal during the time and def spiraled down. Had a bunch of fricked up shit happening at the time.
I got better and found out this wasn't the last episode. I was so disappointed. The actual last episodes were trash.
/endrant
It was kind of a perfect ending, but that couldn't be the actual end because that would run counter to the core thesis of the show:
Things don't resolve and end like a tv show, they just keep going"
damn, that actually shed a new light on it for me
It's a good show
They got a little unsubtle about it with Herb but it's very strongly written. So much of the show as it goes on applies to that theme
gay boy nihilism
Bojack pretty much murdering Sarah Lynn kinda ruined the show for me tbh
He didn't murder her
Failed her? Definitely.
Abandoned her? Absolutely.
Killed her? Nah.
Not that anon but where do USA's laws stand on charging someone for leading someone else to overdosing? I don't remember if sarahlyn was a minor when the planetarium stuff happened (she wasn't right? 20something? But I don't remember) but I wonder if bojack could have been sued on any legitimate ground for being accountable of the indulgence that led to the overdose, or at least providing the drugs.
It actually varies by state, but sometimes if the police believe you purchased the drugs or connected the victim with a supplier, you're considered liable and possibly also a supplier.
Drug laws are a bit haywire, though. The target the lower levels of drug abuse very heavily while ignoring, say, major pharmaceutical companies which encourage doctors to prescribe stuff like fentanyl. At least in the US, anyway. Sarah Lynn likely got her stash from a doctor and the both of them would be in less legal trouble than if they got it off the street.
Sorry but the way they retconned her death and the way he just allowed her to die just changed him from a pathetic butthole to a dangerous insane sociopath to me, all his struggles felt pointless since he just did something far more terrible than anything he ever did before.
I wouldn't say murdered, but the whole 17-minute thing changed my mind.
It went from 'this butthole she trusts nudged her out of sobriety due to his selfishness which led to her death, but there were a lot of other life factors' to 'he outright let her die by refusing to contact paramedics, using that time to fake evidence to remove any complicity'
Definitely some manslaughter vibes, given he was also on a wild bender during this time.
>thread about normal words, BUT FROM A HORSE show
>devolves into shit flinging arguments about the cyclical nature of the universe (or lack thereof)
Just when I thought Cinemaphile couldn't surprise me
You know, it's weird.
Maybe.. thirteen years ago I would have said "Welcome to Cinemaphile". It's like a normal thread for 2009.
nta, but what's the modern equivalent of this thread? One where it breaks down into arguing over canceling and more culture wars bullshit?
I mean yeah. Since about 2014, the site almost never has cool or interesting arguments. It's almost always about identity and culture wars.
Honestly I prefer the existential horror of ever-expanding space to that.
As do I, I guess. Even though it feels a little like baby's first essential dread at times. I usually check out /tg/ if I want a chance to catch something interesting.
>2009 was 14 years ago
Frick me when did that happen
>2009 was 14 years ago
Anon...it's 2032...14 years ago was 23 years ago
I think Bojack Horseman has a lot of faults and is objectively a shitty show that I wouldn't watch again and actively regret watching.
But this episode was very well done, especially the titular poem and if the show had ended with this episode it would have elevated the entire thing.
All of the best episodes are the ones that go against the usual show format