Novelist. Author of APSARAS and tales from the beautiful Saigh Valley. First person to quantify spiritual values.

Total Pageviews

Monday 19 November 2018

The afterlife

To anyone living, the afterlife is something that happens in the future. But what if there is no future?
This is the scenario according to the Davies Hypothesis
By adopting the idea that time is three-dimensional, the hypothesis shows that although essential for there being a present, the future, in reality, never exists. It never has and never will. Nor is it possible to cross dimensions and travel to the future. How, therefore, can we be so sure that there is an afterlife? We can't; it's as simple as that.
This is of fundamental importance to those who are relying on the existence of an afterlife; those like the suicide bombers who kill and maim innocent people under the impression that as martyrs they will go to a heaven populated with a harem and all the good things of life. It is surely time to disabuse these people of this notion and tell them that there is no afterlife and that they are murderers and should be posthumously treated as such.
Sadly, this reality also crosses the hopes and wishes of those looking forward to a post-mortem, eternal 'life' of ease after a life time of drudge; reuniting with lost and much loved spouses etc. The message, therefore, is to make the most of participating in the most astonishing miracle of nature; to be alive, against all the odds. You are a long time not existing. It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why when a person dies in the expectation of reuniting with the late spouse in heaven, it doesn't immediately become hell when the recently deceased finds him or her in the arms of another lover or mistress.
There is a case to be made for a short period, post mortem, when the brain can prepare the body for ultimate death  including visions that may give comfort. see: here

Wednesday 7 November 2018

The caravan and the rule of ten

Donald Trump's contribution to the recent mid-term elections has highlighted the dilemma over the caravan of 30,000 people marching through central America towards the US/ Mexico border.
He has been widely critisised for putting the interests of the Country he presides over before the humanitarian plight of people fleeing hardship and brutality of disfunctional/ criminal Governments.
This is a classic case for the 'rule of ten'. see my post of 2011.

The President has decided that if he accedes to their wishes of entry into the US, he will set a precedent for other caravans to follow. The rule of ten says that: If you don't want ten such caravans you don't allow one.

The problem, it seems to me, would best be addressed by tackling the rogue Governments, the corruption and endemic drug based gangs that fuel it. Empower the ordinary people; promote the idea that evil abounds when good people fail to act.