Death doesn't make sense according to physics

I see that some people here are stuck in a time loop. They don't understand theoretical physics, digital physics or quantum computation. Are we at least up to quantum loop gravity here?

Now zero point energy doesn't matter. This is really funny. There's a zero point energy associated with every particle in your body. Can this energy still exchange information with the universe after death? Of course it can.

The universe is a quantum computer and to open up a book it takes information and energy. This information and energy doesn't die when you experience death.

My point about memory is that it's an event that happens in time. You just remember the subjective experience. Our timeline doesnt get erased when an event occurs.

Speaking of Einstein, he talked about the simultaneous nature of time. If the past, present and future all happen at the same time then how can a memory be something that doesn't still exist in time?

You know why? It's because of extra dimensions. An observer from higher dimensional space can view our worldline in one instance. It's like being in the stands at a race track. You can see the entire track from your point of view. This is why Einstein said:

"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

He also said:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

I sometimes think people are stuck in the past and they are mentally still living in the time of Newton.

Can we all agree St Augustine was a whore and a slut?

reply to post by polomontana


I think tom is winning polo, just give up. I believe there is life after death because it's comforting to know we just don't dissapear - poof! But all things do die in this world polo. Everything that begins has an end. It's gets easier to accept it as you get older becuase everywere i go in real life more and more people are questioning life after death.

reply to post by polomontana


Resorting to ad hominem arguments is not conducive to a fruitful conversation.

I don't think you are willing to hear what Tom and others here are saying to you. I think Tom hit the nail on the head when he said you appear to have a fear of death and are trying to find some non-religious reason to believe there is an afterlife.

I'm afraid that nobody can help you with that particular question except you, yourself. Science cannot explain anything to do with the supernatural. a hypothetical "afterlife" lies outside of nature, so science does not deal in it.

If it comforts you to believe there's some sort of afterlife, then do it. But getting angry at people for telling you that science can't answer your question isn't going to help the situation any, and it won't make anyone change their stories to suit the ideal you are seeking.

It's all about belief. So believe what you want. Just don't try to force science to fit the mold you want it in, that's all.

Ad Hominem attacks? It's just the truth. Tom even admitted in an earlier posts that he doesn't understand these things.

I'm not trying to prove to you anything. Like I said, many people do put their faith in death and that's understandable. They are trying to find certainty in an uncertain world.

They see death as something that's certain and so they put their faith in it.

If reality is a persistent illusion, how can death be a persistent reality?

Here is the source text for the computational universe theorists. It all starts here. You'll need a doctorate in quantum physics to really understand it, I suspect, but the text parts are interesting. I can only splash around in the shallow water on this one.

This is a direct quote from Tom. If he doesn't understand it, how can he debate it?

Because if life is an illusion then death is the end of that illusion, is it not?

Or perhaps because death is the constant in this world?

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Because if life is an illusion then death is the end of that illusion, is it not?

Or perhaps because death is the constant in this world?

Exactly my point. Death is something that many atheist see as a constant. So they put their faith in death because they see the illusion of certainty.

If the past, present and future are persistent illusions, then how is death a persistent reality?

reply to post by Octavius Maximus



Life is but a dream, death is the reality of it. Or something like that. Sorry, i wanted to say something else but i completely forgot

You don't understand atheists if you think we have "faith" in anything like death or the afterlife.

I am basing my opinion on what happens when we die on my knowledge of science, which is not equipped to deal with any supernatural topic.

Calling an ad hominem attack the truth does not make it the truth.

And since this argument has become repetitively circular, I've said my piece; those with eyes to read have read it, and those without are getting angry and accusatory. So I shall take my leave.

Computers when turned off have information stored in the bios and hard drive. The operating system holds a lot of information between shut down and boot up. The whole concept of computers is based on a state of 1s and 0s. Electrically this is a state of machine code on=1 off=0. The machine code is base 2 binary. Thus 8421 is base 2 with 1 on and 0 off in the chain of command code. So 1011 in 8421 is the binary number 11. 1011 means 8 is on, 4 is off, 2 is on, 1 is on. The machine CPU reads trillions of 1s and 0s as it does it's magic.

As for humankind, knowledge is infinitely indexed into the unknowable light universe. Your spirit at the time of departure retains it's conscious form and wisdom in the light universe. When the conscious form returns for another adventure in the mortal realm, it falls through the ether into physical reality.

Now that I've clearly shown that energy survives death, lets look at psychic ability.

Here's a case:

A psychic had a sketch drawn of the killer in a crime and she told the police that the victim and the killer worked together and that he killed her because she was about to spill the beans.

The detectives were skeptical and put away the sketch and information.

Ten years later a cold case detective asked the Chief of police could he put the psychic's sketch on TV. They got a direct hit and the criminal matched the psychics sketch. The criminal also worked with the victim and he confessed to killing her because she was about to tell his wife about their affair.

The psychic says they connected with the deceased energy. How can a psychic retrieve information from this energy? Also the police vouch for the psychic in this case. Or should we just put our heads in the sand when situations like this one arise?

please, dont deal with examples which use things which cannot be tested.

I will say the psychic was in on it. Or drew a vague enough picture so anyone could be attributed to it.

Im basing this on evidence, a game show 'Deal or no Deal' once hada psychic special where all the people holding the cases were people claiming to be psychics.

they were worse than people who guessed.

how can a person say there a freethinker and they are seeking the truth and they ignore something so obvious because of their belief system?

Psychic ability is not supernatural, it's a natural event that we label supernatural because we don't fully understand it.

My point is alot of these things can be defined in the parameters of physics. The thing is psychic ability implies life after death and that's a direct challenge to a pre-existing belief system, namely atheism.

an atheist is not a freethinker but many atheist are closed minded when it comes to their belief system.

Psychic ability is not supernatural, it's a natural event that we label supernatural because we don't fully understand it.

Good, now that youve said this, i ask you:

How can you create an theoretical example where the crux is something we do not understand?

Because of a lack of understanding, we cannot give an accurate answer

how can a person say there a freethinker and they are seeking the truth and they ignore something so obvious because of their belief system?

Because i dont believe every piece of Tosh thrown in my face?

The thing is psychic ability implies life after death and that's a direct challenge to a pre-existing belief system, namely atheism.

And every other religion, you realise? Where in the bible does it say that we arent allowed to, say, read each others minds?

If the American constitution is a god given right, then is reading someones mind a breach of privacy? If so, why would god make these rights, when human ability could dodge them?

an atheist is not a freethinker but many atheist are closed minded when it comes to their belief system.

What do you mean? An atheist chooses not to subscribe to a religion due to a lack of belief, he doesnt conform into a system.

He is thinking freely.

I am saying this as an atheist.

Originally posted by wigit
But a computer is not aware. I am.

A computer can be made to be aware, hypothetically, and assuming chemical reactions create the "illusion" or "effect" of consciousness.

Originally posted by polomontana
Now that I've clearly shown that energy survives death, lets look at psychic ability.

Here's a case:

A psychic had a sketch drawn of the killer in a crime...

Link to this story please?

A lot of these kinds of stories float around, but there never seem to be much hard evidence of their factuality.

The truth is, a lot of studies were done to determine of psychic phenomenon are real or not, and said studies covered all topics from ESP to Premonitions to Telekinesis, Remote Viewing etc. Some of them were government studies (during the cold war, to try and make psychic weapons out of people, wiki "MK ULTRA), and some of them were from the academia. Of all the studies, the only ones that demonstrated any conclusive evidence that some people can influence statistics (and thus be proven to exhibit psychic powers, often these tests involved predicting the cards drawn in a deck) were experiments that could not be repeated with those same results, which in science, is absolutely imperative. So at the moment, most scientists regard psychic phenomenon as a myth or impossibility, because repeated experiments have demonstrated that they appear to be as such.

For those who say that psychic powers will not work for whatever reason in an experimental setting, and for those that contend that spiritual energies are "by nature not detectable by physical instruments," I simply respond with a question:

Where is the boundary between faith and stupidity?

it depends, but many times they are one and the same.

Its like difference between complete freedom and chaos.

Its actually the same thing. The connotations of the words are different.

Originally posted by polomontana
There's nothing supernatural about death. The only reason why we call it supernatural is because we don't fully understand it. If you were to go back 2,000 years ago and clone a sheep, that would be called a supernatural event.

Life after death occurs naturally. The "meat" that you occupy is energy in a state of decoherence. So again, if energy can't be created nor destroyed, how can your energy die?

You did see the Matrix. Living batteries, what happens when there is no more electricity being generated? Lights out.

Originally posted by polomontana
Now that I've clearly shown that energy survives death, lets look at psychic ability.

Huh? you have not, at least in the way it seems you believe energy to be, as a type of soul?

No one here has argued that energy in the known scientific sense doesn't exist after death, the problem here is that many have argued its use after a person dies, it seems you're missing the point or don't wish to even acknowledge the issue that many have brought up time and time again, which is simply that YES the energy exists after death BUT its in a useless form to the individual because it does not function as a life form and lacks the processing ability a consciousness needs, at least in the current scientific understanding.

Drop the energy thing or state what you believe this energy is or how it interacts in a way to keep your consciousness going after the body stops functioning, if you can't or you won't make this clear then accept this is philosophical at best or clarify your comments and use reasonable scientific evidence to support your ideas.

Like i said before most are happy to discuss this stuff but when you claim things as fact and try to pass off metaphysical/pseudoscience as actual science then we have a problem.