Do you think theres an afterlife?

I think you might've misunderstood my views or else I miscommunicated them - I don't think linear time is an illusion; what I think is that if it weren't linear, we wouldn't be able to tell. Either way, from any point in time that we would describe as being after my death (whether in a literal or non-literal sense), there would exist no perspective that could be said to be mine, and in that sense, I would not exist.

I guess I must've done, as I thought you were basically concurring with Einstein's view that "The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion", in which case there would be no "after your death".

Well, in our case, whether past and future are illusory or not, I think Einstein is indeed dead (or at least not currently extant). If there does come a point at which others would consider me to be dead in the same way, I expect, from their perspective, they'd be correct.

Nevertheless, I don't think that Einstein's view implies the existence of an 'afterlife'. It, too, might be inconsistent, since it, too, seems to rely on a linear conception of time (i.e., according to popular understanding, you must be dead before you can be in an afterlife).

Thank you for reading my blog by the way. Much appreciated.

want your opinions. do you think theres an afterlife or does everything just end?

There probably isn't.

thats sad to think that someone you care about could be gone but at least theres no pain any more

Firstly, I regard life as no less precious than you do simply because you believe that death is the end.
Secondly, we were discussing eternity and according to yourself its morbidity (no pun intended) versus my belief that eternity simply boggles the mind and cannot be fully understood and thus cannot be classed as a bad thing. I gathered that you were able to deal with the hypothetical of eternity (as you made it clear already that you don't believe in it), and for you to simply terminate the discussion by dismissing the hypothetical as nonsense because you don't believe in it, greatly undermines the discussion we were having.

He's dead relative to you and I as observers sure, but from another frame of reference he might not be. In your essay you say "the concept of ‘now’ has no physical definition because time is relative and necessarily attached to location in space.." If you cannot define 'now' in any absolute sense, then how can you say with any certainty whether somebody is dead or not? The best you can do is to give an interpretation from an arbitrary frame of reference.

From the perspective of any individual who shared an overlapping frame of reference with the deceased, the person would indeed appear to be dead. But the ability of the deceased to perceive is not lost, it is merely unobservable to those restricted to certain location in space and time.

Not at all, it was a plessure to read.

So, the concept that when our whole brain stops functioning, we can suddenly think again and remember our families and our experiences seems virtually impossible to me.

When we die, the atoms which make up our body will go back to the environment from which they came. They've been on a long journey - from the furnaces of stars, through space after a supernova event to, eventually, making us what and who we are. And, after that, they will be decomposed by some bacteria and make up a future ecosystem. The atoms may be eternal, but we're probably not.

I say, do you think flying pigs would make good pets?

Jokes aside, I think you are being disingenuous, since the only reason anybody ever believes in eternal life is because they believe it would be a good thing (or at least, better than death).

As for whether or not eternity as a thing actually exists or is meaningful in any way, that is a question of Physics really. It could be that time, when conceptualised into vector space as a fourth dimension, is limited just as the finite 3D space is limited (although expanding at a faster and faster rate).