Death doesn't make sense according to physics

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

My point exactly. Religion, meditation, philosophy, these are the proper tools for this research, IMHO.

It isn't a "science-y" thing. That doesn't mean that it is meaningless, just that you can't (IMHO) whup out thermodynamics, make a couple of simplistic (and wrong) statements and say "voila, I have proved an afterlife using physics". Noooo, really you haven't. But that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of consideration as a topic, but to me using physics to discuss "pneuma" or whatever you'd like to call it is a bit like delivering a baby with a post-hole digger.

It's the wrong tool.

Well, currently.

However, I would like to make a few assertions:
1) It is IMPOSSIBLE (right now) to PROVE the existence of the consciousness after death and decomposition of the physical body.
2) It is IMPOSSIBLE (right now) to PROVE that consciousness ends after the death and decomposition of the physical body.

HOWEVER

The evidence suggests the latter, because:
1) Brain scans coordinated with biofeedback indicate that when people feel certain emotions, specific parts of the brain become more active. This is true for physical (motor) behaviors, such as moving your hand, memories, the senses (or more specifically, brain reactions to stimuli), etc.
2) When someone appears to be "gone" their brain activity is either partially or entirely gone as well. There are very specific ratios and cases of brain death that relate to very specific conditions (for example the difference between someone being a vegetable and someone losing their short term memory, someone losing limb function etc).
3) UNFORTUNATELY for the pro-soul case, there are physical explanations for why people have NDE, and in some cases experiences SIMILAR to NDE's have been produced in a laboratory setting (don't ask for a source, it was a TIME article I read a while ago, and it doesn't mean much because it still doesn't disprove the soul, just keep in mind that it helps offer an explanation for NDE's). If you REALLY need to see information on this so-called physical evidence, go look for it yourself, because I have better things to do, and I can't just link you wiki because the article is heavily biased and lacking in substantial information for both sides of the case (read the "talk page" under the neutrality tag to see what I'm talking about).

So this is why many scientists and people without spiritual faith question the existence of consciousness after death. The burden of proof exists in the theory to provide physical evidence; if there's no physical evidence, the theory cannot be proven. Thus, neither theory can be proven, because the subjective feelings of consciousness cannot be objectively observed, measured, recorded, or even verified to exist. For all I know, I am the only one experiencing consciousness.

For a GREAT book to read, try "MIND" by John R. Searle. It might also be under "MIND A Brief Introduction."

Grr. And just as I feared, I started talking too much again.

SPOODILY, POLOMONTANA, I responded with very lengthy posts to you guys on the preceding page of this thread (so you guys don't miss it).

reply to post by Zaargg


Yes, I am familiar with how to look up the big bang on wikipedia. I want to hear from people who have dismissed my theory about their own personal understanding of the big bang.

Thanks for the link though.

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature.

This quote from the first paragraph is where the error is. I highlighted the error in case any one missed it.

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Spoodily]

Originally posted by Spoodily

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature.

This quote from the first paragraph is where the error is. I highlighted the error in case any one missed it.

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Spoodily]

Error? Please clarify.

reply to post by Zaargg

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

encarta.msn.com...

Once again, the part in bold is not true. I have several posts in the previous pages if you haven't browsed through them yet.

Originally posted by Spoodily
reply to post by Zaargg

 

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

encarta.msn.com...

Once again, the part in bold is not true. I have several posts in the previous pages if you haven't browsed through them yet.

In order for the bold part to be untrue, at least in the sense of factuality as that relates to currently accepted theory in the scientific community, then:

It must be a misconception/typo/misnomer, the true information therefore must be cited on a more official site (please link this site)

If instead you mean that you yourself can reason why those statements are false, then please summarize why, as I don't want to crawl through 8 pages of posts.

I think it's interesting how this thread has morphed from a discussion of death and physics into one about beginnings and the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Ingolstadt
I think it's interesting how this thread has morphed from a discussion of death and physics into one about beginnings and the Big Bang.

It probably shouldn't have.

Perhaps.

However, it may be necessary to understand the beginning before one can understand the end, this may be a relevant topic..

I'm just enjoying the dialogue here for some reason..

Originally posted by Zaargg

Originally posted by Ingolstadt
I think it's interesting how this thread has morphed from a discussion of death and physics into one about beginnings and the Big Bang.

It probably shouldn't have.

What surrounded the "once extremely compact, dense, and hot universe"?

Where did this this "primordial condition of enormous density and temperature" come from?

How did something as dense as the entire universe overcome its own inward pull of gravity and keep travelling outward?

What was the aftermath of the 'Big Bang' expanding into? (Similar to the first question)

Originally posted by Spoodily

What surrounded the "once extremely compact, dense, and hot universe"?

Nothing. There was nothing surounding the compact universe. No space or time.

Originally posted by Spoodily
Where did this this "primordial condition of enormous density and temperature" come from?

We still don't know. Maybe two universes that collapsed together, maybe the hand of God, maybe both, maybe something else. We don't know yet

Originally posted by Spoodily
How did something as dense as the entire universe overcome its own inward pull of gravity and keep travelling outward?

We still don't know, but we're searching. At this time we can see a few seconds after the Big Bang took place.

The new particle accelerator in Cern will give us more information about the Big Bang as soon as its construction is complete. Expect some interesting results on spring 2008.

One theory is that our home pc's are created by a more advanced computer(our brain) and so maybe our brain is created by an even more advanced computer again(Universe,God,ET)?

Also another theory could be that each person has a distinct set of genes that makes them concsious/alive so when you die you will have to wait until that exact pattern of genes comes again and maybe then you are concsious again but further on in the future.

reply to post by panther512


That's so funny that you said all of those things. I almost edited my post but I left it as just the questions so I could get an unbiased answer.

This is what I was originally going to edit in below the questions:

I am not looking for answers along the lines of 'God', 'nothing', 'it always existed', 'science doesn't know, but they're searching'. You nailed all the cliche answers. They all are dead ends.

The one dimensional point at the core of the 'big bang' created the universe. The one dimensional point is a 'leak' from the fifth dimension. That is the missing piece to the big bang theory.

The origin of the universe is important to the topic of death because 'life' is of the same fifth dimensional energy that created the universe. The body remains in the fourth dimension (universe; 3-D plus time) after death and the 'soul' is no longer confined to the fourth dimension. The 'soul' is a one dimensional point locked into the present on a linear timeline in this dimension. In death, fourth dimensional time no longer applies to the 'soul'.

Here's what I believe to make the most sense in order.

1. we have souls and they choose to incarnate into a living body. (I feel a living body is capable of living without a soul but for not long... or it may just live in a vegetative state). Our soles leave the body outside of time and space and choose to reincarnate at any time or place. When choosing a human body, the limitations of the human body suppress any memories of past lives until we die.

2. our souls come from a 'universal consciousness' outside of time and space. when a living being is born, a piece of the global consciousness is taken and placed into body. This universal consciousness could very well be what many people call God. When the soul dies, it becomes part of the global consciousness again. This universal consciousness is capable of an infinite number of souls to be created from itself.

3. Our souls go to the afterlife and can never return to the physical world.

4. We do not have souls and complete nothingness happens after we die. (This is the least likely I believe could happen, otherwise I feel there is no meaning of life)

Of course I'm open to the right answer. It's not the end of the world for me if I find out that I am wrong.

Originally posted by Spoodily
reply to post by panther512

 

That's so funny that you said all of those things. I almost edited my post but I left it as just the questions so I could get an unbiased answer.

This is what I was originally going to edit in below the questions:

I am not looking for answers along the lines of 'God', 'nothing', 'it always existed', 'science doesn't know, but they're searching'. You nailed all the cliche answers. They all are dead ends.

The one dimensional point at the core of the 'big bang' created the universe. The one dimensional point is a 'leak' from the fifth dimension. That is the missing piece to the big bang theory.

The origin of the universe is important to the topic of death because 'life' is of the same fifth dimensional energy that created the universe. The body remains in the fourth dimension (universe; 3-D plus time) after death and the 'soul' is no longer confined to the fourth dimension. The 'soul' is a one dimensional point locked into the present on a linear timeline in this dimension. In death, fourth dimensional time no longer applies to the 'soul'.

And in what facts do you base this theory?

So, by adding one extra dimension, we automatically solved all the answers for the existance of our universe and the existance of ourselves?

The fact is that we don't know yet. We are searching for the answers.

The real dead end is assuming without facts and without proof that something else exists name it God, luck, 5th or 11th dimension and believing that this is the answer.

Our best tool to understand the universe and our existance is science.

Everything else is just speculation or belief in something that you cannot proove(God, luck, extra dimensions etc etc).

Originally posted by polomontana
Again, I'm not trying to conflate anything. It's very simple. The 1st law of Thermodynamics states, energy can't be created nor destroyed.

So when you born energy is not magically created and when you die energy is not destroyed. The laws of physics only supports the experience of death. Your energy doesn't die. We exist in a potential reality that's formed from a quantum fluctuation. We are energy in a state of decoherence and our energy doesn't magically disappear when we die. That's hocus pocus physics.

You're no different than a computer or a cell phone; the only difference is that you are made out of carbon-compounds and water instead of silicon and plastic. You are both machines and that is all. When you turn off your cell phone, the energy doesn't go anywhere really. The same thing happens when you die- you just turn off. Your brain quits receiving electrical impulses from the energy burned off from used fat cells. It just doesn't work anymore. Then eventually microbes eat up the rest of your broken machinery (which is you) and you cease to exist in any real form.

You dying is the same as cutting a wire in your cell phone so that it physically can't work anymore; when you die, something in your machinery breaks, maybe a liver or a heart instead of a wire.

There's nothing spiritual about this and there's nothing spiritual about you; you are a purely physical machine. There is nothing special about humans- you're just as special as a can opener, there is nothing different about you. There's no such thing as souls, spirits, etc. There is no supernatural. The natural world is the only thing that exists.

To believe otherwise is to believe by faith and faith is the belief without evidence. Thus, faith is the definition of ignorance and stupidity, and the cause of insanity.

[edit on 9/18/07 by RedDragon]

Originally posted by paul762
One theory is that our home pc's are created by a more advanced computer(our brain) and so maybe our brain is created by an even more advanced computer again(Universe,God,ET)?

Define "advanced". And evolution proves that more "complex" things can arise from simpler things.

Zaargg,

Your whole post about ufology doesn't make sense. There's no reasonable doubt that U.F.O.'s and the beings who fly them exist. We come to know the truth through reason everyday. We send people to jail based on the reason of 12 individuals. Any lawyer worth his/her salt will tell you that eyewitnes testimony (direct evidence) is desired in a case over circumstantial evidence but circumstantial evidence is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. Scott Peterson was sent to death row based on largely circumstantial evidence.

The skeptic of ufology only has an opinion on ufology. Ufology has both direct and circumstantial evidence. There's more evidence for U.F.O.'s than there is for black holes, virtual particles, dark matter and dark energy. The only reason that the skeptics of ufology turn logic on it's head is because of their pre-existing belief system. They give there opinion more weight than eyewitness testimony .

About the psychic there's story after story like the one I posted. You have psychics giving names of criminals before police have a suspect, you have them telling the police where they live and where there buried and what their buried in. You have them having sketches drawn of the criminal before the police have a suspect. One case the psychic told the police that the person who killed the girl went to school with her. The police were looking at her boyfriend as the main suspect and they were skeptical because the boyfriend didn't go to school with her. The psychic as for her yearbook, opened it up, went from page to page and stopped and pointed at a guy and said he's the killer. The police checked it out and he was the killer.

In order to believe the skeptic in cases like these, you would have to give more weight to their opinion than the veteran detective who is trained to be skeptical who vouches for the psychic. This is backwards logic and doesn't make any sense. Psychic ability occurs naturally and there's no evidence that the skeptic has to rebutt the evidence beyond what's called HERESAY. If you listen to most psychics they are connecting energy and we know that energy still exists after a person goes through the experience of death.




[edit on 18-9-2007 by polomontana]

The universe is energy and information. It's a quantum computer. You are a quantum computation. When you drink a glass of water, computation is taking place. When you open up a present computation is taking place. When you do these thing bits of information is being converted into its that we observe and that takes energy and information.

You can't "die" because because you are energy born into a potential reality within our bubble universe. It's very elegant and simple. The universe is the hardrive, we are the software and the laws of physics are the computer language.

Here's another interview with Seth Lloyd in Wired.

www.wired.com...

Also, you can't be destroyed unless the universe is destroyed. That could occur if two bubble universes collide. Some speculate, that's what caused the big bang. Even then your pocket universe may not be destroyed, just another bubble universe will branch of of our universe.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by polomontana]

As others have already pointed out on this thread, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that our consciousness is anything more than a manifestation of our brain activity. Once our brain cells finally cease to function, it's all over. No afterlife or reincarnations.

Personally I don't find that terrifying or depressing at all. If we just have this one ride, it's up to us to make it as good as possible. Live life, enjoy it and don't worry about death, once you're dead you won't be around to feel sorry about it.