Discussion in 'Science, Tech, & Space Exploration' started by August, Nov 27, 2017.
And he says he can prove it.
Scientist says there is no afterlife, and that he can prove it
But then this scientist says there is one ?
Scientist: Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife
Of course there is.. The first scientist needs to go back to school, learning a bit more about the universe
Well I don't want to croak and find there is nothing that would be a total shonk.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Either there is an afterlife. Or. There is nothing to worry about because the moment we kick it. It will all just be over and done.
If there is a silver lining to this whatsoever. It's that if there isn't an afterlife. No one will be around to be disappointed.
Grim. But why worry about a possibility we can not change?
I have no doubt there is, as to what it is...well thats another story.
Scientists don't bother me at all, I listened to a webcast by Tibor Molnar, it was great, he nailed the differences in a heartbeat.
People worry. But see things like speculation about an Afterlife are opinion, even when those opinions come from very educated established scientists. It's still an opinion and a biased one at that. If you think about it. Really think about it.
There are physiological aspects of the human being that simply can't be undone by the process of death.
For instance. If we look at einsteins relativity. E=mc2 Energy is Equal to mass. Mass. Our Mass is Energy. To put it in other terms, We are Energy. our physical matter, Our lives, Our thoughts. Our consciousness, It's all energy.
Science has a little something to say about energy. and how it can not be completely destroyed. Our bodies spend the entirety of our lives processing energy to fuel our consciousness. Our consciousness a physical manifestation of Energy.
I feel like people don't fully grasp this. But. We are (Our physical matter, Already proven to be energy.) something that can not be completely destroyed, Only Transformed into another form of energy. By the scientific Law of Energy conservation. I Can't Say for certain, What's next, in the afterlife. But I can say for certain. That The physiological law of energy conservation. Says our energy, Passes on to something else. It can't just be destroyed. So it must be transformed into another form of energy.
I will even add to this. Our Minds, A thing we do not fully understand. But Energy is surely part of it Physically and it also fuels us. So, When we are entirely energy beings, That sustain ourselves off of energy we consume. It is foolish to believe that when we die we just cease to exist.
I'm just saying.
I am going to get hammered or ignored by Dr Wu or Castle for this but.....
In my opinion, Scientists are working almost with a disability.
If they have no empirical data to substantiate an idea. The idea is crap.
The old saying, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But to a scientist...it is off the radar.
However a Philosopher may think of 1000 new ideas in his life, and all are OK.
Most will prove to be nothing, some may prove to be something.
So the question is.
Who has the greater likely hood of a new concept.
the Scientist who refuses anything that he can't quantify,
The philosopher who looks at what people have thought for thousands of years in uncountable cultures.
Who is more likely statistically alone, to come up with a truth.
This is why I respect science, but feel very sorry for the scientists.
They miss so many possibilities.
I respect Bother Wu And Castle, But as a peer, I would say to you and them, Science Evolves and changes as our understanding evolves. What we believe to be the truth today. May not be the ultimate reality of the issue. The more we learn, The more we find out we don't know.
You have to examine the entirety of an individual, People leave an impression on Time and space, We emit brainwaves we (broadcast) ourselves, From birth till death. When the physical body passes. In this physical space one's essence in the form of their brain waves. Travel on through the cosmos. That's not to even mention their footprint they left on Time itself. a concept that is proven relative. Death may not be a finality. It may ultimately just be a margin or border.
If I can, put this in a way... If time is Relative. Meaning it's not static. I'm not talking about Us building a time machine here. I'm talking about the nature of time, And The concept of Time being Relative. Meaning. Time, Much Like space-time. is Manipulated by forces. One force we know that manipulates time is acceleration. When a physical object nears the speed of light, Time for that object slows down. To an outside observer it would seem like that object was frozen in time, But for the object itself. Time would be passing normally. This is a proven, via experimentation, example of Times Relative effect, Time is not stuck in one mode. It's wibbly wobbly. it can be manipulated by Natural or unnatural forces, A photon extends both forward and backward in time infinitely. The exact same photons that touch you. Touch other points in time. (Isn't that neat?) the neutrino is the same way. Time is not a force that Effects them. Now, Knowing that Time is relative, And Photons and neutrinos are neutral and can touch you at different points in time. Then know. that by that principle, Photons are a Quantum force in time it'self. (A field that covers time, not just the past. But the future, Both forward and backward through time, infinitely.) So, If the past and present and future are all connected via this Quantum understanding of photons. If photons can touch your long lost loved ones, (Right Now), Then a persons understanding of Time itself really changes the definition of what death is. The real phenomenon isn't an Afterlife, It's life itself.
Okay. I'm done, I just had a few things to say about this subject. But I'm done now.
I see it like this.. One dies. **Time stops**. If ones soul or consciousness dont immediatelly transform into a new form or afterlife..
Then this is a way back.
The universe evolves. BILLIONS of BILLIONS of BILLIONS of BILLIONS ... ( you get the idea ) of years from now.
Everything will be very different from now. Perhaps the Universe has expanded, reversed, crunched and re-evolved in a new Big Bang
Somewhere in that mess one will be.. Remember **Time** is still suspended until ones mind is reborn into something living that fits the soul.
So, Going from death to new life will be perceived as instantaneously.. even if it took a very long time..
Time is relative and personal.
And you should get hammered saying silly things like that about science...... (humor...)
But I'll just correct some mistakes about science in general and how it works.
Science is not about 'philosophical ideas' which are subjective but about objective facts and repeatable studies regarding claims. If a claim can be shown to be true via experiments or studies or lab work then it becomes an accepted fact....if not it remains an idea which in science is called an hypothesis. If there is no proof..then it simply does not become accepted though continuing work might be done to get that proof.
Science is not in the business of philosophy and philosophy is not about science....it's that simple. There is an area called the philosophy of science which explores some of these themes but it's not about proving anything but about exploring the nature of what science is and how it relates to us on a social and cultural level.
Regarding the scientist above....I don't honestly see how he could prove that there is not an afterlife since there would not be any way to do this within the current bounds of objective science. It would be only an opinion from him based on his knowledge of various scientific principles but would not be an actual proof imho.
I'm agnostic....I honestly don't know if there is an afterlife or not but imho science has nothing definitive to say about this on a pure science level since it is not a scientific question imho.
So given a scientists need for empirical data, shouldn't all true scientists be agnostic.
And not believe in any afterlife.
No, because Ultimately there is no empirical Data on this question of an afterlife. It's simply an unattainable answer. So the best answers we will ever have on the subject are opinions.
From a strict rationalistic science point of view the agnostic view would certainly make sense for scientists but I can also see atheism being applicable.
But as we know many (most) great scientists in the past (prior to modern times post 1960 or so) were theists over the years though that has changed in the 20 and 21st centuries to where the majority are atheists or agnostics.
Dundee is correct in that agnosticism is the most tenable position because there isn't any empirical data ..one way or the other.
They say now that when you die you actually hang around in your brain for awhile , that's not very nice to think about.
Doris Stokes the famous Medium ( believe her or not) said she would come back from the grave if she could to tell about the afterlife as far as anyone knows she has not done so.
I feel like Agnosticism is an effortless out, for someone who doesn't or can't make up their minds. But hey that's just one man's opinion. I'm just saying, On any topic. the guy who doesn't have an opinion is a lot like an agnostic. How often has the person without an opinion been fruitful for conversation?
But I digress. I just have strong feelings about the Agnostic ideology, It's literally taking an intellectual stand to not have an opinion about something. Seems kind of lazy to me. But. Again. Just one man's opinion.
Separate names with a comma.