What Is Real?

My partner and I attended Cincinnati's chapter of the Death Cafe last night, and once again, I discovered just how difficult it is to find common ground on the subject of afterlife, even within a group of people who have gathered with the sole intent of finding some level of common ground on the subject of afterlife. Even within a group that numbers less than the fingers you've brought to the table, and only three of them men.

It was held in a cemetery; naturally, I suppose. More accurately, the office building of Arlington Memorial Gardens in a very nice function room; complete with cookies, bottled water and round cafeteria-style tables with chairs. The moderators were pleasant and the agenda was fairly straightforward: "What is Death, and how did you come to the conclusion of death that you've come to?". As the meeting structure insisted, my partner and I were separated, and installed within groups that were populated by others who'd also been separated from those they'd arrived with. There'd be no GreekChoruses allowed here tonight.

Having the view of death and afterlife that I have, it wasn't long before my own little group caught the attention of one of the mods, to the degree that he dropped into an open seat and took me on directly. Apparently, my own eclectic blend of atheism and philosophical embrace of the eternal nature of the human mind triggered something visceral within him. Apparently enough to force him off his own stated requirement that no one's view be challenged, regardless of how outrageous it might be.

"So, you're sure that there's an objective reality?"

I decided that this was the least controversial aspect of my own views on life and death, so I stood firm, "Yes," I said, "at the substructure, there is a commonality that establishes an objective real and unites all that exists within that real."

"Well, I don't agree. I don't believe in an objective reality," he grinned.

I smiled back. "Okay. So what. You can refuse to believe in it, but that doesn't affect the existence of it."

"Oh no," he smiled, even tighter than before, "if I don't accept your premise, it doesn't exist for me. This has been proven by Quantum Physics."

I smiled to hide my own irritation. I'd run into this bastardization of Einstein's Special Theory ofRelativity before, and I knew that this wouldn't end well. As he continued, I recognized a westernized version of Buddhism that insists that we cease to exist as separate beings as soon as our material bodies die; blending into The One (provided that we've lived in such a manner as to have become enlightened, of course – otherwise, it's back to Earth again to either advance or regress in existential stature; as the case may be). I'd spent days, weeks, and months debating this stuff with these Namaste Guys online at my favorite hangout – the ATS board – and to be honest, this isn't what I'd come for this evening. I decided to go for the root, and kill this debate before it got up and started getting its stride together.

"What you're working with is Einstein's Special Relativity."

He stopped his analogy featuring three movie theaters showing three versions of his own life from three different people's perspectives, and stared at me.

I continued. "Perception is reality...right? You perspective is your reality, and my perspective is mine. This is what you're saying, right?"

He nodded.

"That's Special Relativity," I said. "That's where people get their technical justification for that belief."

"Well...yeah. Reality changes according to how the observer experiences it."

I smiled. He'd used the magic word – observer. I knew now exactly where he was coming from.

"I have 4 diagrams right on my Kindle that debunk a key aspect of Special Relativity. I can settle this issue right now and we can move on to other things."

He looked at me as if I'd just bet everything on an obvious bluff; a pair, ace high against his inside straight. I could sense his confusion as I reached into my bag.

"Here," I said, turning my device on. "I have that specific digression in its own document."

I got up and moved to the chair next to him, and lifted the Kindle to show him the first diagram.

"This is the classic version of Special Relativity's non-simultaneity and its impact on Time itself as described by Einstein's own thought experiment involving the two observers (A and A') and the lightning strikes that hit the train either simultaneously or not, depending on the perspectives of the observers."

He carefully inspected the diagram, and eventually agreed that – yes – this was a proper depiction of Einstein's famous train-observers-lightning-strikes thought experiment.

"Okay, but..."

"Hold on," I said. "That's just one diagram. I have three more."

"We know that Einstein suggested that because the photons from Strike A' would hit Observer A' before the photons from Strike A, Observer A''s reality would have a time dilation imposed upon it (time would actually slow down), even as Observer A (who received the photons from both strikes simultaneously due to his own location on the embankment) would continue to exist in a reality where time would remain undilated as a result of both strikes' photons reaching his eyes simultaneously."

He paused a moment before agreeing with me. This is not easy stuff, so I didn't rush him.

"Like I said," he noted. "Two different realities imposed as a result of two different observational perspectives."

I looked up from the Kindle. "Well, not really. Here, let me show you why."

"As we see in this diagram, we're being told that the observer (A') is slowing down the time in his own reality by looking forward at the strike (A'), since that dilation is occurring as a result of the photon impact against his eyes (relative to that same impact from strike A) and the fact that the speed of light is unchanging regardless of the relative velocity of the observer, with that fact severely affecting the axiomatic Speed equals Distance divided by Time with Time the only factor available for adjustment."

"Right"

"Well, as you can see here, all he's got to do is turn his head around and his own time will actually speed up as a net result of his observing Strike A instead of Strike A'. In essence, Time will either slow down or speed up for him depending on which direction he faces. Doesn't this seem a bit tortured, logically speaking?"

He paused. After an extended moment, I decided to bail him out a little and presented the punch line.

"The truth is that there is a larger perspective that exists, even if it doesn't belong to any sentient or sapient observer. It's the perspective of the Reality Confine as a macro-system."

He stared at my diagram and his brow began to furrow. "Are you suggesting the existence of God as the ultimate observational perspective?"

"I don't believe in a god of any sort," I replied. "I believe in an objective reality."

"What's Reality?" he shot back. "What about reality is objective?"

"Objective reality is the net relationship matrix that consists of everything that's occurring at a specific instant (or quantum) of Now, every fact set and fact set continuum that's ever emerged as a result of each instant of Now that's ever existed, and every dynamic informational being that exists as a result of a brain that exists or has ever existed. That's what reality, as a macro-system that exists as an objective environment, is, and relative to Einstein's Special Relativity – math formulas be damned – that's the only perspective that ultimately matters when determining whether Strike A and Strike A' occurred simultaneously or not. His two observers are just people who exist as part of the reality that hosted those two strikes. They have no power to affect that reality as a result of their perspectives on anything that happens within that reality."

I looked over at the women at our table for some expression of support, but there were glazed eyes all around. Twenty minutes into this thing and I'd already lost the room.

"You still have the right to disagree," I offered to my host. "That's the unique power of the human being. It can experience whatever it decides to experience."

He seemed to break out of his fog. "That's what I was trying to tell you. We can create our own reality. We're not restricted to any one version of reality."

I smiled and nodded. "Yes, if you leave here believing that you'll be met with silver wing-tipped arch-angels, then your crossing-over experience will feature your being met with silver wing-tipped arch-angels."

This seemed to satisfy the table and the mood lifted immediately. The younger of the two women chirped in her own deeply considered view on the matter.

"I know that I'm going to meet my mother and my grandparents, and I know that we'll all be living in the Lord's kingdom once the end of days has come and Jesus has collected his lambs together."

I saw my faux-Buddhist host quickly alert on her references and shift his attention away from me. I was now in the clear and could quietly coast through the rest of this event.

Death and dying is not an easy subject to objectively discuss. That's probably because we're each going to be forced to confront it, even those of us who've doggedly kept ourselves isolated from the messy business of human interaction.

And death is inevitable.

What may also be inevitable (if there is an afterlife) is that if one has no expectation whatsoever concerning what follows the death transitional event, then one will be provided. Now that might be a good thing, but it doesn't have to be a good thing. If we do survive the death of the brain, then it stands to reason that we'll remain essentially who we've created of ourselves. This suggests that everyone else – even some of the biggest assholes on our little planet – will remain essentially who they've created of themselves. This suggests that there may be a hell of a lot more to heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in any of our philosophies.

And this suggests that we'd be well served by spending some time on determining what's real about life, death and whether there is an afterlife.