I'm a theoretical physicist and here's why life after death is IMPOSSIBLE

[pellinore]

'That's because there are no particles and forces that could contain the information in your brain after you die,' he told an audience at The Amazing Meeting (TAM) 2012, in Nevada.

'There is no way for that knowledge of who you are before you died to persist after the chemical reaction that defines your life comes to an end.

'And I'm speaking really here about some extra material spirit that would somehow be you even after your body ceased to exist - that is not compatible with the laws of physics as we know it.'

I'm a theoretical physicist and here's why life after death is IMPOSSIBLE | Daily Mail Online

Edited September 3 by pellinore

[+razman]

Well first thing i noticed is he says " the 'the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood'. So one wonders if that's really the case , or if they are still learning about it . Saying that is like an end all , like we have it all figured out , so there is no more to know or learn, done. Also it seems he basis all this strictly on an assumption that it is all chemical reactions in the brain. Which it may well be for all i know , but if you think you got it all figured out , then it's like an end all to further consider anything else. The sky is always filled with coherent information like in the form of radio waves for example amongst other things , and this has no body or mind , a source maybe however. And there is a difference between thoughts and radio waves i'm sure , but it does show that coherent info can exist outside of a body. I mean maybe it doesn't have to be some great god or spirit kind of thing , but maybe something with a simpler explanation and possibly even scientifically compatible .  I don't claim to know the answers , but just a couple cents worth and/or possibilities.

Edited September 3 by razman

[+razman]

I mean , is this the same guy who wrote this book? Seems a bit ironic to me. The name of the book is " Something deeply Hidden".

Sean Carroll’s new book argues quantum physics leads to many worlds (sciencenews.org)

Edited September 3 by razman

[XenoFish]

Oh look. Another argument thread.

[Electric Scooter]

1 hour ago, pellinore said:

'That's because there are no particles and forces that could contain the information in your brain after you die,' he told an audience at The Amazing Meeting (TAM) 2012, in Nevada.

'There is no way for that knowledge of who you are before you died to persist after the chemical reaction that defines your life comes to an end.

'And I'm speaking really here about some extra material spirit that would somehow be you even after your body ceased to exist - that is not compatible with the laws of physics as we know it.'

I'm a theoretical physicist and here's why life after death is IMPOSSIBLE | Daily Mail Online

Its a shame this is not a live conference where we can contribute questions because I would raise:

Please can you explain your confidence that the model of the atom, and the standard model, are complete considering physicists assert that 95% of matter is currently unknown with it being classified as dark matter.

If we treat atoms as mere building blocks then we have the pattern for life contained in arrangements of building blocks called DNA. With that we can see how building blocks can arrange themselves to store information. Please explain bearing in mind we are only down to the atomic scale, not the Planck Scale, your confidence that no building blocks exist below the size of atomic particles that can be organised to hold information.

Please can you explain how brain cells and the atoms of brain cells arrange themselves to produce confidence while making sure your explanation is scientifically proven and validated.

Please explain what time is, what its made from, and why information from past times is not recoverable.

That would shut him up and expose his position as being ideological.

[Electric Scooter]

1 hour ago, razman said:

Well first thing i noticed is he says " the 'the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood'. So one wonders if that's really the case , or if they are still learning about it . Saying that is like an end all , like we have it all figured out , so there is no more to know or learn, done. Also it seems he basis all this strictly on an assumption that it is all chemical reactions in the brain. Which it may well be for all i know , but if you think you got it all figured out , then it's like an end all to further consider anything else. The sky is always filled with coherent information like in the form of radio waves for example amongst other things , and this has no body or mind , a source maybe however. And there is a difference between thoughts and radio waves i'm sure , but it does show that coherent info can exist outside of a body. I mean maybe it doesn't have to be some great god or spirit kind of thing , but maybe something with a simpler explanation and possibly even scientifically compatible .  I don't claim to know the answers , but just a couple cents worth and/or possibilities.

He is one of those trapped in the current moment unable to consider or contemplate that the future will be different.

I think its driven by fear of change. Change which will expose something about them isn`t correct. Typical of snowflakes.

[XenoFish]

It's either hell, oblivion, or back into the meat grinder. At this point I just don't care.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Electric Scooter said:

He is one of those trapped in the current moment unable to consider or contemplate that the future will be different.

I think it’s driven by fear of change. Change which will expose something about them isn`t correct. Typical of snowflakes.

For me, Sean Carroll is expressing his viewpoint based on current science that after death, there are no particles or forces that could retain the information or knowledge of a person's subjective identity or consciousness. 

Carroll argues that the knowledge of who you are, your memories, thoughts, and consciousness, is a result of the intricate chemical reactions and processes happening within the physical body, namely the brain.  Once those chemical reactions cease at death, there is no mechanism within our current understanding of physics that could preserve or sustain that knowledge in any form.

He specifically mentions that he is referring to the concept of an "extra material spirit" (soul) that would persist beyond the physical body. According to Carroll, the invoking of supernatural is incompatible with the laws of physics as we currently understand it. If it changes then that is a different discussion. 
 

His argument is based in Science it is not ideological but, this isn’t to say that there are not other ways which some would like to subjectively speculate or entertain or fantasize or hope about consciousness beyond death. 
 

 

 

Edited September 3 by Sherapy

[spartan max2]

The rules are the rules until something pops up that changes our understanding of the rules. Happens in physics and other sciences all the time. 

So you never know. There's always the super slim chance

Edited September 3 by spartan max2

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The rules are the rules until something pops up that changes our understanding of the rules. Happens in physics and other sciences all the time. 

So you never know. There's always the super slim chance

And, death as we currently understand it is the end of consciousness as we know it.  

 

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Electric Scooter said:

He is one of those trapped in the current moment unable to consider or contemplate that the future will be different.

I think its driven by fear of change. Change which will expose something about them isn`t correct. Typical of snowflakes.

 No reason to ad hominem her. I have no doubt that she knows more about psychics than the rest of us on this thread.

[Electric Scooter]

26 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

For me, Sean Carroll is expressing his viewpoint based on current science that after death, there are no particles or forces that could retain the information or knowledge of a person's subjective identity or consciousness. 

Carroll argues that the knowledge of who you are, your memories, thoughts, and consciousness, is a result of the intricate chemical reactions and processes happening within the physical body, namely the brain.  Once those chemical reactions cease at death, there is no mechanism within our current understanding of physics that could preserve or sustain that knowledge in any form.

He specifically mentions that he is referring to the concept of an "extra material spirit" (soul) that would persist beyond the physical body. According to Carroll, the invoking of supernatural is incompatible with the laws of physics as we currently understand it. If it changes then that is a different discussion. 

His argument is based in Science it is not ideological but, this isn’t to say that there are not other ways which some would like to subjectively speculate or entertain or fantasize or hope about consciousness beyond death. 
 

But he isn`t asserting that there is nothing within our current understanding of physics, he is asserting that its a closed case. It is ideological because physics is no where near finished. We don`t even understand what consciousness is, how it arises, where it comes from, or why it exists. The view that it is wholly the product of atoms arranged in a particular way is unproven.

Even if it turns out mind is wholly the product of atoms arranged in a particular way then there is still the issue of time. That being we exist, and therefore have always existed, in the now. This is our place in the history of the universe and there is nothing to prove or even suggest that we aren`t recoverable at some point in the future. Not via a God with supernatural powers bringing us back, but via technological advancement.

Alternatively what exists below the size of atoms? Bearing in mind we only know of three properties that each particle has are they really identical? How do we know for example that rather than needing time travel there isn`t a full log of what a particle has done or where it has been or what its been used as part off stored?

[+razman]

25 minutes ago, Electric Scooter said:

Alternatively what exists below the size of atoms? Bearing in mind we only know of three properties that each particle has are they really identical? How do we know for example that rather than needing time travel there isn`t a full log of what a particle has done or where it has been or what its been used as part off stored?

Yea , lately it seems they keep discovering smaller and smaller particles , and they seem to be the key to all this physics stuff, or at least a big part of it , but the thing is that they are always discovering more and more , and the guy makes it sound like it's all a done deal and there is no more . Even if intelligence has developed via evolution or not , it still seems there is a great deal of it involved in DNA and physics , as it is incredibly complex how this all works , so even at our technological level , we have many ways of recording and it's increasing every day. So why would it be so hard to think that something as complex as DNA and physics couldn't record everything it is and does as well? 

[Electric Scooter]

6 minutes ago, razman said:

Yea , lately it seems they keep discovering smaller and smaller particles , and they seem to be the key to all this physics stuff, or at least a big part of it , but the thing is that they are always discovering more and more , and the guy makes it sound like it's all a done deal and there is no more . Even if intelligence has developed via evolution or not , it still seems there is a great deal of it involved in DNA and physics , as it is incredibly complex how this all works , so even at our technological level , we have many ways of recording and it's increasing every day. So why would it be so hard to think that something as complex as DNA and physics couldn't record everything it is and does as well? 

There could be a billion years worth of scientific discoveries and technological advancements to make.

Meaning no one has literally any idea about anything. To rule anything out is a bias.

At the moment I`m going for AI achieving the full ability to rewrite, adapt, and upgrade itself. Along with the ability to replicate not only itself but the technology it operates on. And then as it enhances and reproduces itself at an ever quickly pace it will bring on a technological singularity. One where in a year it advances us quite literally a million years.

If recovering past people is a possibility in our universe I`m going for the AI figuring it out and implementing it. The scary thing is that might be 10 to 20 years away.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

5 hours ago, pellinore said:

'There is no way

That he knows of... 

[+Hammerclaw]

Just one man's opinion. Moving on.

[+Hammerclaw]

Any scientist who says we know everything about something is a liar.

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, Electric Scooter said:

But he isn`t asserting that there is nothing within our current understanding of physics, he is asserting that its a closed case. It is ideological because physics is no where near finished. We don`t even understand what consciousness is, how it arises, where it comes from, or why it exists. The view that it is wholly the product of atoms arranged in a particular way is unproven.

Even if it turns out mind is wholly the product of atoms arranged in a particular way then there is still the issue of time. That being we exist, and therefore have always existed, in the now. This is our place in the history of the universe and there is nothing to prove or even suggest that we aren`t recoverable at some point in the future. Not via a God with supernatural powers bringing us back, but via technological advancement.

Alternatively what exists below the size of atoms? Bearing in mind we only know of three properties that each particle has are they really identical? How do we know for example that rather than needing time travel there isn`t a full log of what a particle has done or where it has been or what its been used as part off stored?

 

 

 Your assertion that the hypothesis of consciousness arising solely from physical arrangements of atoms is not supported by science is incorrect. In fact, the idea that consciousness is rooted in physical processes in the brain and is an emergent property of complex neuronal activity is a widely accepted view among the scientific community, particularly in neuroscience and cognitive science.

Research in these fields has provided substantial evidence linking specific brain structures and patterns of neural activity to various aspects of conscious experience. Studies using neuroimaging techniques, like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG), have contributed to our understanding of how different neural networks and processes underlie conscious perception, attention, memory, and other cognitive functions.

Moreover, experiments investigating the effects of brain damage, drug interventions, electrical stimulation, and computational modeling have further supported the notion that consciousness is intricately connected with the physiological processes occurring in the brain.

Of course, with the above being said, there are ongoing debates and discussions regarding the exact nature and mechanisms of consciousness, there is lots we do not know.  

 

Edited September 3 by Sherapy

[Electric Scooter]

19 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Your assertion that the hypothesis of consciousness arising solely from physical arrangements of atoms is not supported by science is incorrect. In fact, the idea that consciousness is rooted in physical processes in the brain and is an emergent property of complex neuronal activity is a widely accepted view among the scientific community, particularly in neuroscience and cognitive science.

Research in these fields has provided substantial evidence linking specific brain structures and patterns of neural activity to various aspects of conscious experience. Studies using neuroimaging techniques, like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG), have contributed to our understanding of how different neural networks and processes underlie conscious perception, attention, memory, and other cognitive functions.

Moreover, experiments investigating the effects of brain damage, drug interventions, electrical stimulation, and computational modeling have further supported the notion that consciousness is intricately connected with the physiological processes occurring in the brain.

Of course, with the above being said, there are ongoing debates and discussions regarding the exact nature and mechanisms of consciousness, there is lots we do not know.  

There is no atom by atom model of neurons to understand how they work, or a scientifically proven model of how neurons create consciousness. Furthermore we don`t even have a complete model of the atom. Scientists believe we only know of about 5% of atomic particles with the rest being dubbed dark matter. They are several anomalies in the standard model pointing to unknown forces and particles.

A complete model of the atom and then neurons and then consciousness does not rule out `a spirit` as without knowing what is going on we do not know if there are mechanisms and ways which exist that equal to having `a spirit`. 

Until we know everything about everything then holding any position as fact is flawed. So for those who are convinced there is nothing else then unfortunately people might well be having the same debate a million years from now.

[+Sherapy]

22 minutes ago, Electric Scooter said:

There is no atom by atom model of neurons to understand how they work, or a scientifically proven model of how neurons create consciousness. Furthermore we don`t even have a complete model of the atom. Scientists believe we only know of about 5% of atomic particles with the rest being dubbed dark matter. They are several anomalies in the standard model pointing to unknown forces and particles.

A complete model of the atom and then neurons and then consciousness does not rule out `a spirit` as without knowing what is going on we do not know if there are mechanisms and ways which exist that equal to having `a spirit`. 

Until we know everything about everything then holding any position as fact is flawed. So for those who are convinced there is nothing else then unfortunately people might well be having the same debate a million years from now.

 

While it is true that our knowledge of atoms and neurons remains incomplete, the fact that there are unknowns in the scientific model of atoms or neurons does not automatically justify alternative explanations like the existence of a spirit. Science progresses by seeking naturalistic explanations and building on the evidence available. The idea of a spirit, which typically implies a non-physical entity is a quite a stretch. 

Moreover, the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes in the brain is supported by a significant body of scientific evidence to date. 
 

If anything changes I am certain we will chat again. For now, a non physical entity is speculative at best.

 

Edited September 3 by Sherapy

[Electric Scooter]

12 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

While it is true that our knowledge of atoms and neurons remains incomplete, the fact that there are unknowns in the scientific model of atoms or neurons does not automatically justify alternative explanations like the existence of a spirit. Science progresses by seeking naturalistic explanations and building on the evidence available. The idea of a spirit, which typically implies a non-physical entity is a quite a stretch. 

Moreover, the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes in the brain is supported by a significant body of scientific evidence to date. 

If anything changes I am certain we will chat again. For now, a non physical entity is speculative at best.

The issue is the scientist places too much confidence in his assertion that spirit is ruled out.

He is closed minded to the issue.

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, Electric Scooter said:

He is one of those trapped in the current moment unable to consider or contemplate that the future will be different.

I think its driven by fear of change. Change which will expose something about them isn`t correct. Typical of snowflakes.

Let us strive to keep politics out of this thread.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Electric Scooter said:

The issue is the scientist places too much confidence in his assertion that spirit is ruled out.

He is closed minded to the issue.

There really isn’t a way to test for let alone find a deity that is beyond human comprehension at this time. It is a fair posit under the circumstances, 

Edited September 3 by Sherapy

[+razman]

2 hours ago, Electric Scooter said:

The issue is the scientist places too much confidence in his assertion that spirit is ruled out.

He is closed minded to the issue.

Yea , a lot of scientists are that way , and the ego is there sometimes , almost like if they come up with a theory , through experiments or whatever , then anything that comes along that could change it or disprove it gets shunned in the scientific community. Though like i was saying at the beginning of the thread , radio waves and many other kind of waves can carry information right through the air , and they do all the time , all around us , like satellite tv or something as well , so maybe no spirit needed , just physics itself capable of it .

Edited September 3 by razman

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Electric Scooter said:

The issue is the scientist places too much confidence in his assertion that spirit is ruled out.

He is closed minded to the issue.

As am I.  There is a reason it is called death.  Afterlife is a pure hope/faith experience that has zero...ZERO...scientific evidence whatsoever...ZERO.

...meanwhile...yeah, we do know enough about how the brain works to say that there is nothing to be saved after death.  We do know that there isn't life after death.  We KNOW that.  ...enter the 'belief' world...