Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This article is going back to 2012 but it only just now appeared on my online newsfeed. Did anyone see this?
I'm a theoretical physicist, here's why life after death is impossible
It's an age-old question - what happens to your mind and body after you die?
According to one US scientist - not much at all. In a recently resurfaced video from 2012, theoretical physicist Sean Carroll gave a talk on the matter.
The academic - an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute and Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University - said that the 'the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood'.
Because of this, once we stop existing as a physical being, Carroll explained, there is no material understanding of how we could continue to live in our world.
Any scientist that claims we understand everything about... (anything) is not a real scientist. The whole point of science is to give us tools to study things we don't understand and every time someone thinks there is a completeness to the understanding of anything someone else finds more to investigate. The one who wrote that article may have degrees in science but he is not a real scientist.
I agree, he falsely made an absolute claim. My points were that 1) he was presumably using the evidence we have and not making circular arguments, and 2) you were implying the 2 competing ideas are equally valid based on what we do not know. The odds change when we look at what we do know.
Your odds are based on everything we can measure and observe while ignoring that the measurable evidence comprises less than 5% of our observable reality. Doesn't that bother you or shake your confidence in the odds? BTW, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am confident I know more about our reality than you do and my odds favor a living conscious Reality whether or not you want to call it God.
Any scientist who claims we understand everything about... (anything) is not a real scientist. The whole point of science is to give us tools to study things we don't understand, and every time someone thinks there is a completeness to the understanding, someone else finds more to investigate. The one who wrote that article may have degrees in science, but he is not a real scientist.
Have they not considered that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth and was not tired by their creation, is able to give life to the dead?
Aye! He has surely power over all things.
And on the day when those who disbelieve shall be brought before the fire: Is it not true?
They shall say: Aye! by our Lord! He will say: Then taste the punishment, because you disbelieved.
Therefore bear up patiently as did the apostles endowed with constancy bear up with patience and do not seek to hasten for them (their doom).
On the day that they shall see what they are promised they shall be as if they had not tarried save an hour of the day.
A sufficient exposition! Shall then any be destroyed save the transgressing people?
Your odds are based on everything we can measure and observe while ignoring that the measurable evidence comprises less than 5% of our observable reality. Doesn't that bother you or shake your confidence in the odds? BTW, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am confident I know more about our reality than you do and my odds favor a living conscious Reality whether or not you want to call it God.
This claim of "5% of observable reality" based largely on dark matter is not something I'd suggest hanging your hat on. "Dark matter" intuitively sounds like a hack explanation to me, a placeholder until we have something better. There's a hypothesis circulating now that we don't need dark matter, the problem is that we've been underestimating the influence of entropy on a galactic scale. It is a reasonable hypothesis, though (like dark matter) just an unproven hypothesis at this point. IMO there is no basis to argue that most of reality is somehow unobservable. In any case we can only make conclusions about what IS observable, so it's a moot point.
This claim of "5% of observable reality" based largely on dark matter is not something I'd suggest hanging your hat on. "Dark matter" intuitively sounds like a hack explanation to me, a placeholder until we have something better. There's a hypothesis circulating now that we don't need dark matter, the problem is that we've been underestimating the influence of entropy on a galactic scale. It is a reasonable hypothesis, though (like dark matter) just an unproven hypothesis at this point. IMO there is no basis to argue that most of reality is somehow unobservable. In any case we can only make conclusions about what IS observable, so it's a moot point.
Everything in our observable reality exists at a similar energy level as we do (frequency of vibration within a specified range of vibration we can access with our senses or their extensions). That is why we are able to perceive them as we do (the "icons" on the screen of our mind we perceive and the "objects and substances" of our material reality).
We are unable to perceive as coherent "icons" anything at higher energy levels because they exist at frequencies beyond the reach of our senses or their enhancements, especially those that are unmeasurable. Even with the measurable high energy spectrum, we cannot form any coherent "icons" of whatever exists at those energy levels. Accelerating their individually measurable components and smashing them by impacts (Colliders) makes observing the measurable "pieces" possible at our level for only fractions of a second.
These efforts within the measurable energy level of our Reality can provide insights into the composition of our Reality. But It does not enable us to even begin to form any conceivably coherent "icons" of what the measurable pieces might have comprised taken as a whole. So it is utterly useless to us to try to determine what coherent "icons" might comprise the unmeasurable spectrum that dominates our Reality.
Everything in our observable reality exists at a similar energy level as we do (frequency of vibration within a specified range of vibration we can access with our senses or their extensions). That is why we are able to perceive them as we do (the "icons" on the screen of our mind we perceive and the "objects and substances" of our material reality).
We are unable to perceive as coherent "icons" anything at higher energy levels because they exist at frequencies beyond the reach of our senses or their enhancements, especially those that are unmeasurable. Even with the measurable high energy spectrum, we cannot form any coherent "icons" of whatever exists at those energy levels. Accelerating their individually measurable components and smashing them by impacts (Colliders) makes observing the measurable "pieces" possible at our level for only fractions of a second.
These efforts within the measurable energy level of our Reality can provide insights into the composition of our Reality. But It does not enable us to even begin to form any conceivably coherent "icons" of what the measurable pieces might have comprised taken as a whole. So it is utterly useless to us to try to determine what coherent "icons" might comprise the unmeasurable spectrum that dominates our Reality.
Spending a lot of time at the New Age BS Generator?
Any scientist that claims we understand everything about... (anything) is not a real scientist. The whole point of science is to give us tools to study things we don't understand and every time someone thinks there is a completeness to the understanding of anything someone else finds more to investigate. The one who wrote that article may have degrees in science but he is not a real scientist.
She. A woman, Elmira Tanatarova, wrote that article.
Your odds are based on everything we can measure and observe while ignoring that the measurable evidence comprises less than 5% of our observable reality. Doesn't that bother you or shake your confidence in the odds?
No, because we can prove mathematically that if you base anything on what we do not know, you are probably wrong. Sans evidence, you can only have 50% confidence, at best. Basing conclusions on what we do know increases the odds, not decreases them.
Also, if we can only observe 5% of our observable reality, then you can not know if that 5% is actually 5%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
BTW, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am confident I know more about our reality than you do and my odds favor a living conscious Reality whether or not you want to call it God.
If only you had that absence of evidence to the contrary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
