Death doesn't make sense according to physics

reply to post by polomontana


I just wanted to say that I'm amazed at how long this thread has been going. Polomontana, you obviously aren't open to any other ideas than your own here. All I see is people explaining it over and over to you in a clean, simple, logical way, and you keep using this new age concepts like it was some kind of science. If you're gonna argue a case there must be a way to prove it true or false. Religion can't be proven (or disproven) so it's pointless to use it to support your theory of "life, death, the universe and everyting".

All these energy/spirit concepts are also totally impossible to prove, so a rational person might say something like -Sure that's possible, but there is no way of knowing either way. If there is no way of knowing, there is no point in arguing is there?

You are entitled to your believes, and we shouldn't mock other peoples believes, but when you try to argue your case to someone else you can't expect they buy into your theory when there is no way of proving it. And if they do, I would say there is an emotional reason for them doing so, as opposed to a rational reason. That's why I see religion more as a way of comforting oneself and trying to remove the fear of death. Which is only natural since we don't know anything about death, and most people fear what they don't know.

I just love it when people get their physics from Sliders.

Yeah, Dewd, the torch can burn forever, but only if it's blessed by the May Queen, then taken to Tir na Nog. Because in Tir na Nog, the dimensional resonance of the time vortexes caused by the reverse polarized tachyons causes a rift in the fifth dimension.

But, of course, only when the moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

edit: Oh, and I almost forgot, you'll need a unicorn.


I LOVE IT WHEN SMART PEOPLE GET SARCASTIC

i was dead for billions of years before i was born, this brief but wonderfull lifetime of consciousness is a prescious spark that lights up and goes out, use the energy you have and live, take risks, dare to make a fool of yourself and never lose out on anything through fear, theres a famous character on british tv ( and SAS) whose motto is "he who dares, wins" as an athiest i've always thought spending a life in servatude of a god is a crime against life. we are energy and for a brief period of time conscious, i believe we will forever be energy but never again conscious, But im more often wrong than i am right, so why worry myself

Originally posted by R-evolve
i was dead for billions of years before i was born, this brief but wonderfull lifetime of consciousness is a prescious spark that lights up and goes out, use the energy you have and live, take risks...

Well said!! Anyone who thinks that atheist materialists have a negative and hopeless view of things need only read that post. Inspiring!

And to the OP: physics has nothing to say about life. Life happens a couple levels of complexity above physics (chemistry, then biology itself) and the underlying physics doesn't even "know" that life exists at all. Asking physics to explain death or life is like asking the alphabet to explain Moby Dick.

Good topic
Look at your answer in the stars. When they die and burst their energy into space, it doesn't die. The light/radiation emitted continues to travel indefinitely. It keeps on living in another state.
Same for you, when you die your energy (spirit), will leave your body and carry on its journey.

Death is not the end

Death makes a lot of sense in terms of physical science. Two examples:

In the context of the thermodynamics of open systems, life can be seen as a dissipative system, and death is when the forces of equilibrium overtake the forces of homeostasis.

In the context of evolutionary biology, the aging process can be seen as a collection of inherited genetic diseases that don't present themselves until after the reproductive cycle has ended (and thus, there is no mechanism to select out these diseases).

Originally posted by TheOracle
Same for you, when you die your energy (spirit), will leave your body and carry on its journey.

You do not turn to light when you die, you rot in the ground. We have no proof of a spirit (though it doesn't mean I don't think it could exist), so it's all speculation.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by TheOracle
Same for you, when you die your energy (spirit), will leave your body and carry on its journey.

You do not turn to light when you die, you rot in the ground. We have no proof of a spirit (though it doesn't mean I don't think it could exist), so it's all speculation.

The soul/spirit is probably of a higher dimension so we can't really prove it's existence in our 3-dimensional world. Maybe in the future, somehow, with extremely advance technology, but today, it's all speculation and belief and experiences (such as NDEs, astral projection, etc.) during the times we live in today.

decomposition as we see on earth is the largely the work of bacteria,and to a lesser extent erosive forces such as water,wind,sunlight, etc.

if your corpse was in an environment without bacteria,erosive forces,predators it would sustain its form almost indefinitely.

no energy is lost upon death,the atoms still exist,its just the that the biological cells can no longer function.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by welivefortheson]

I hear you, Polomontana. That was my first thought when I first read the First Law of Thermodynamics, too. ; )

This is not to say that I agree with any simplistic interpretations of energy or equating it with consciousness.
(Although, in all truth, they very well may be right and the truth of this matter IS very simple, for all I know.)

But that's not why I decided to reply.
I am just puzzled and bewildered, as always, by the far-fetching conclusions made by those who dismiss the possibility of survival of consciousness after physical death.

I mean, it's just one non sequitur after another...! ; )

First, they start by refuting a priori any attempt towards demonstrating the possibility of survival of consciousness by saying (typically) "there is absolutely no evidence of " - even though there is PLENTY of evidence - but when broaching the subject of how the world or the universe (no less!) came to be, they actually use AFFIRMATIONS.

Needless to say, the same caveat would apply as in the question of survival of consciousness - to a much higher degree, even!

But no: whereas "there is no evidence" for the former, there seems to be no dissent whatsoever as to the origins of the Universe... (Right, great Almighty one: you were there - that's "evidence" enough for me.

)

Those who are GENUINELY interested in research into the survival of consciousness are kindly invited to browse the internet for quite serious papers on that matter. (Since we know that "anecdotal evidence" - AKA the experiences of, literally, millions throughout history - is equated with "non-scientific" fluff).


Here is one.


* It was this term - absolute(ly) - that originated the somewhat less popular notion of - absolutism... ; )

And we know what history usually does to THAT one.

Originally posted by Vanitas

I hear you, Polomontana. That was my first thought when I first read the First Law of Thermodynamics, too. ; )

This is not to say that I agree with any simplistic interpretations of energy or equating it with consciousness.
(Although, in all truth, they very well may be right and the truth of this matter IS very simple, for all I know.)

But that's not why I decided to reply.
I am just puzzled and bewildered, as always, by the far-fetching conclusions made by those who dismiss the possibility of survival of consciousness after physical death.

I mean, it's just one non sequitur after another...! ; )

First, they start by refuting a priori any attempt towards demonstrating the possibility of survival of consciousness by saying (typically) "there is absolutely no evidence of " - even though there is PLENTY of evidence - but when broaching the subject of how the world or the universe (no less!) came to be, they actually use AFFIRMATIONS.

Needless to say, the same caveat would apply as in the question of survival of consciousness - to a much higher degree, even!

But no: whereas "there is no evidence" for the former, there seems to be no dissent whatsoever as to the origins of the Universe... (Right, great Almighty one: you were there - that's "evidence" enough for me.

)

Those who are GENUINELY interested in research into the survival of consciousness are kindly invited to browse the internet for quite serious papers on that matter. (Since we know that "anecdotal evidence" - AKA the experiences of, literally, millions throughout history - is equated with "non-scientific" fluff).


Here is one.


* It was this term - absolute(ly) - that originated the somewhat less popular notion of - absolutism... ; )

And we know what history usually does to THAT one.

Good post!!

The reason people speak in ABSOLUTES about life after death is because of their pre existing belief system.

Some people have actually put their faith in death because they see it as the only thing that's certain in an uncertain world. So any evidence that suggests life after death they basically ignore. They ignore it because they have to seriously think about these things and that could upset the world that they have built around their belief.

So once again, it's a case of belief over REASON.

For this view, that That Which Is Not exists, can never predominate. You must debar your thought from this way of search, nor let ordinary experience in its variety force you along this way, (namely, that of allowing) the eye, sightless as it is, and the ear, full of sound, and the tongue, to rule; but (you must) judge by means of the Reason (Logos) the much-contested proof which is expounded by me.

Parmenides

Parmenides claimed that the truth cannot be known through sensory perception. Only pure reason (Logos) will result in the understanding of the truth of the world. This is because the perception of things or appearances (the doxa) is deceptive. We may see, for example, tables being made from wood and destroyed, and speak of birth and demise; this belongs to the superficial world of movement and change. But this genesis-and-destruction, as Parmenides emphasizes, is illusory, because the underlying material of which the table is made will still exist after its destruction. What exists must always exist. And we arrive at the knowledge of this underlying, static, and eternal reality (aletheia) through reasoning, not through sense-perception.

en.wikipedia.org...

If we look at death soley from the point of view of the "appearance" of this world then we will be blinded until death enlightens us.

Quietus Overdue

Blistering Beelzebub! This thread is still growing, like a melanoma?

Brothers and sisters, death may or may not make sense according to physics, but you are all going to die. So am I. The rest is all fantasy and self-deception. Get over it.

Originally posted by polomontana
I don't see how death makes any sense within the laws of physics. We are energy in state of decoherence. So how does your energy die? In order to show that we die you would have to prove 2 things within the laws of physics.

A) That energy can die.

B) That your something other than energy.

If you can't counter these 2 things within the laws of physics, then how can you say we die?

You can say death is an experience just like getting married or having a child but you can't say that our energy doesn't survive the experience of death. That doesn't make sense in light of the laws of physics.

Your energy doesn't die, it simply changes. This fits better with the second law of thermodynamics which roughly states that all physical processes leave the total energy of the universe more disordered than it was initially. Your body is an extremly organized set of energetic processes, which become less organized over time. When you die your energy will further disperse and be harnessed by other processes, such as other organisms. It is you as an organized and coherent process/entity that dies, not the source energy that is your bulk.

Life in turn appears to defy the second law of thermodynamics, however it was formed and sustained thanks to a constant supply of less disordered energy from the sun.

Originally posted by Spoodily
If we only built upon things that were already written we wouldn't be anywhere. Did the first caveman cite his source for fire? Would none of the other cavemen use fire until it was written about in a publication? Science and religion are one in the same. Believers following books.

PS
Yes, I do know a lot of things.

[edit on 9/21/2007 by Spoodily]

Yep, there are definitely books about religion and science both. And all books are equal, because all ideas are equaly true and useful, and therefore I can fly to the moon in a Jesus powered rocket and live on audit counciling forever right?

I don't quite get your quote about cavemen though. Of course they were communicating the method for making fire to one another. And the first one to make fire did it in his cave lab just like a modern scientist! (unless of course you beleive the bit about Promethius)

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Our energy is generated by chemical reactions within the "meat" you inhabit. When the chemical reactions stop, the generation of electrical impulses stop. And that is what death is.

Yes but your ignoring another problem, its all perception so everything you just stated is a perception of energy which is based on energy.
Did that make any sense?

No... it's not perception. There's "the truth," and then there's "not the truth." The truth is everyone dies, we are not made of energy, and the energy our physical bodies use to perform the processes of life disperses and changes forms.

There's nothing special about any of us. We are intelligent animals that have evolved egos because of such. We "live" and we "die". It's not life for the single entity that is eternal, it's death. It's life through out the universe that is eternal, we're just lucky enough to experience it once.

What I want to know is this: After all of my studying, periodic table, cellular structures, DNA, chemistry, biology, etc... why do I have form and what gives me my form? Why do I keep this form? I believe it has something to do with not only the obvious interaction of elements and their make ups, densities, abilities to bond, but also because of gravitational and other waves and fields of energy given off by the Earth, the Sun, and planets in the vicinity. Does anyone have some scientific insight on this? I certainly am past "creator and soul" talk, so keeping it strictly physics, biology, chemistry, etc. would do me nice.

Thank you

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
There's nothing special about any of us. We are intelligent animals that have evolved egos because of such. We "live" and we "die". It's not life for the single entity that is eternal, it's death. It's life through out the universe that is eternal, we're just lucky enough to experience it once.

Consciousness is the uncertainty here.
You enter a bunch of existential arguments and whatnot...

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What I want to know is this: After all of my studying, periodic table, cellular structures, DNA, chemistry, biology, etc... why do I have form and what gives me my form? Why do I keep this form? I believe it has something to do with not only the obvious interaction of elements and their make ups, densities, abilities to bond, but also because of gravitational and other waves and fields of energy given off by the Earth, the Sun, and planets in the vicinity. Does anyone have some scientific insight on this? I certainly am past "creator and soul" talk, so keeping it strictly physics, biology, chemistry, etc. would do me nice.

What are you asking? Why does matter exist? Space? Are you asking about why you don't sublime into a gas?

I don't quite get it, even if your questions were somewhat rhetorical.

Why am I in the form that I am in? Sure because it is encoded into my DNA and because it is the only way that elements can be broken down through cellular processes etc.... but beyond this, why? My body is constantly replinishing itself, why does it choose to keep this shape? Maybe I do understand why and I am asking one question too many.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Why am I in the form that I am in? Sure because it is encoded into my DNA and because it is the only way that elements can be broken down through cellular processes etc.... but beyond this, why? My body is constantly replinishing itself, why does it choose to keep this shape? Maybe I do understand why and I am asking one question too many.

Five pounds of flax.