HeadingNorth Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 There is a list of mummies and ancient humans remains ... ....which have been safeguarded against decomposition. That's the whole point of mummification. Unless you can point to one that came back to life (and Brendan Fraser films do not count!), I'm not sure what argument you think you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Given an infinite amount of time and with an infinite amount of space an infinite amount of things can/have/will happen, and the chances of them happening again is just as infinite. Then multiply the above by 2, add 1 and with that many dimensions playing with infinity anything and everything becomes probable. The universe hasn't existed for an infinite length of time, nor will it do so in it's current form (at least as best as we can tell). Nor is it infinitely large (again, as far as we can tell). Some things that we can imagine are simply impossible as well, and so they will never happen no matter how long you wait or how large the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 The only way to fit an afterlife that goes with our current observations of the universe is solipsism, like I said earlier in my other post. Or perhaps the thing onewheeldave put, although in a way that would only be an illusion of the afterlife. That's just it, I'm talking about thinking outside the box, hypothesising on the universe OUTSIDE our current observations. Not to simply say "there can't be an afterlife". That's what the religious threads are all for isn't it? I'm struggling to see where there's any science involved in this exercise... Science is an attempt to understand the observations we can make, to make a model of what we observe that we can then test by trying to predict things with it... Since there's no observation of an afterlife, there's no possibility of making a model to explain it, and no chance of testing said model (if you just make something up), hence no science. Okay, let me put it more simply: Let's say your an atheist in ancient times. Everyone around you insists that the sun is a god. You don't believe this so you sit and hypothesise with some friends on a cavepainting of a monitor with "forum" written in heiroglyphics above it to come up with a more reasonable explanations for it. The purpose of the thread is not to deny possibilities, but think OF possibilities. (please don't reply with stuff about "Ah but we can observe the sun, it has light, heat and seasonal/daily behaviour patterns" ) Also, I didn't mention anything about magnetic fields! Given an infinite amount of time and with an infinite amount of space an infinite amount of things can/have/will happen, and the chances of them happening again is just as infinite. Then multiply the above by 2, add 1 and with that many dimensions playing with infinity anything and everything becomes probable. Suh-weet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 The universe hasn't existed for an infinite length of time, nor will it do so in it's current form (at least as best as we can tell). Nor is it infinitely large (again, as far as we can tell). Some things that we can imagine are simply impossible as well, and so they will never happen no matter how long you wait or how large the universe. As much as I appreciate you know more about science than me, as I asked FJ, how do you KNOW the above to be right? An atheist saying that things are impossible or that the universe isn't infinite (although based on current observations to the best of our abilities) is somewhere along the same lines (although nowhere near as unreasonable) as a christian/muslim etc. saying that there is a god and we have a soul. We simply don't know everything and never will. And being open to the way of thinking that things are possible outside our realm of knowledge is NOT solipsism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 As much as I appreciate you know more about science than me, as I asked FJ, how do you KNOW the above to be right? He doesn't. "As best we can tell;" and given the quality of modern scientific instruments, that's pretty darn good. As for things that are definitively impossible; show me an odd number which is divisible by four; or a number which has a fractional square root. Show me a white dwarf star with twice the mass of our Sun... there are an endless list of things which are impossible even in theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 ....which have been safeguarded against decomposition. That's the whole point of mummification. Unless you can point to one that came back to life (and Brendan Fraser films do not count!), I'm not sure what argument you think you are making. Did you not read about Cheddar Man living over 9,000 years ago who was found in a cave? The body was excavated in 1903 and his DNA is a perfect match to two school children living in Cheddar village. If humankind can ‘appear’ once you cannot say it cannot happen and thanks to DNA it may be that people and families will know and recognise each other? I'm putting it forward as a theory and I'm not prepared to argue about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HbroChris Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 No, I think the electromagnetic fields thing was me. The OP was asking us to make several assumptions and from there talk about continuation of consciousness after death. I don't think the intention was ever to prove or disprove the notion. That said: 1. @Chris - I want to distinguish my argument from the classical religious one here, because that's not what this thread is about. We're debating the Dualist notion that part of the essence of self is incorporeal. This unobservable thing would, by necessity, be something related to the person, their state of mind, whatever. Given that the mind is a product of the brain, and the brain is so complex that, while we understand the subunits, we have no idea how it works as a coherent whole I think it is unfortunate that you can't possibility accept that a soul exists and impossible for you to legitimately claim that it cannot. 2. @whoever - fields. Yes, the potential difference caused by the activity of the brain is minuscule in terms of how we usually thing about energy. Nonetheless, it exists, and can influence The World At Large. It's a valid approach to discussing the subject. I fully take the point that energy without a coherent pattern is unlikely to convey any useful data about a system, however it's foolhardy to say that it (or any other observable system) has no effect on any other in absolute declarative terms. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it does and the effect is unobservable or not understood. 3. Other uses of Scientific Method for this purpose From Wikipedia (I know, sorry) In 1907 Dr Duncan MacDougall made weight measurements of patients as they died. He discovered that there was weight loss of varying amounts at the time of death. His results have never been reproduced, and are generally regarded either as meaningless or considered to have had little if any scientific merit.[83] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Really good thread - Great idea. If I may ... I dont think the thread is necessarily supposed to be for people to say things arent possible and disprove each other, isnt it more about trying to suggest imaginative ways, that whilst entirely improbable, have some possibility in them. Up to now, I'm liking the quantum entanglement idea - where are the other pairs though? Across the other side of the universe? like a relection in the axis? How about an undiscovered type of energy thats discrete, in that once produced it doesnt coalesce. ie it mirrors the configuration of the atoms of our brain and can still interact using further types of undiscovered energy. I honestly believe in the near future (say 50 yrs) we will be able to model an actual brain in a computer, including all the pathways. As far as the model is concerned it will be alive and thinking, it will do everything a physical brain does, I'd say this is afterlife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 Did you not read about Cheddar Man who was found in a cave and the body was excavated in 1903. His DNA is a perfect match to two school children living in Cheddar village. If humankind can ‘appear’ once you cannot say it cannot happen and thanks to DNA it may be that people and families will know and recognise each other? I'm putting it forward as a theory and I'm not prepared to argue about it. Which is what the thread's about, I'm actually impressed that Grahame is thinking outside his usual comfort zone and putting forward theories about subjects which he doesn't claim to be an expert on. Even though I think his original intention was a sarcastic dig, he's still being more productive than some on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghozer Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 i'm not religious, don't believe in an "afterlife" in the common sense, and don't believe in any god or diety etc... I do however believe that something happens after we die, what it is, no one knows... here's my idea (similar to yours).. Everything is made up of waves (light waves, sound waves etc) and everything is vibrating constantly.. just like enrgy or sound waves never disappear (they just shrink and get weaker and weaker) I believe that our electrical impulses and brain waves simply emmerse into the atmosphere/world as our body no longer has the capabillity to contain/sustain them, they 'choose'* the next best place they can remain/sustain.. * 'choose' being a representative word as I cannot think of a better way of putting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.