Better living through Chemistry

[K. Lloyd]

Pseudo Science maybe but nonetheless an interesting read.

http://xposethereal.com/scientists-claim-t...e-at-death.html

I particularly enjoyed the part that made the Walter White hairs stand on end.

[Wells 1st MRB]

That's an interesting concept. I'm having a hard time explaining to myself how the "soul" of a body would end up entering a new one. I guess I could just chill outside your house and wait for the baby making, hop a ride to the egg. I wonder if the me at work in another universe is having more fun right now?

[Zahl 1st MRB]

I find this a tad hard to believe, but what about physics isn't difficult to perceive.

The fact of a multiuniverse has been a well known theory for ages. It even dates further back than this article says, in Roman time they started experimenting with multiverse as a theory for how the world is working.

But for the fact that we have a consciousness that dwells in another another universe, meeeh.. What is consciousness made of? Can the theory of an everlasting consciousness be valid if we look at evolution and how animals have changed throughout time, or is consciousness just something universal for all animals and entities. I just don't hope this gives those crazy religious people a last hill top to fight off atheist But definately an interesting thought, cant wait untill some 20 years passes when we know more about the universe and ourselves!

[Wells 1st MRB]

You're so wise, Zahl! Totally going to invade your body with my consciousness in an alternate universe.

[Zahl 1st MRB]

You're so wise, Zahl! Totally going to invade your body with my consciousness in an alternate universe.

What you don't know Wells is that in my other consciousness im a fat 40 year old virgin with a penis that look like a twig that has been chewed on by a dog for 20 years.. Be my guest!

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

This is the science of the invisible, Einstein and Freud started it with their theories of relativity and the sub-conscious mind respectively, the idea that just because we cannot see or sense individually something does not mean that it does not exist.

However, I do not believe this guy is a really credible scientist as the idea of the material universe being created by our Consciousness denies the fact that we know that the material universe very likely existed long before life was created, therefore how can they be connected so vitally? If life were to all disappear, wouldn't it mean that by this theory that the universe stops existing? No way, jose.

The idea of the conscious mind is interesting though. Rene Descartes tried to discern through his hypothetical meditations what was reality and was not, what he could prove existed beyond any doubt to himself, and he was ultimately drawn to the conclusion that even if everything else around him was false, he could prove that at the very least, his mind existed, and therefore he must exist. "Cogito, ergo, sum." "I think, therefore, I am." However, there isn't much proof of consciousness existing beyond death, since a person cannot really think without a properly working brain, unless we want to say that we can prove ghosts and that souls can think for themselves regardless of brains.

As for multi-verse theory, this is nothing new. Its already been theorized that if one thing happens in this universe, there is a universe parallel to ours where something different or opposite happens. So I don't see how this changed anything in regards to that theory.

Personally, I hope science never finds out the truth of whether or not we have souls, or how life after death works, if it does at all. I believe what Friedrich Nietzsche said in regards to Science and Religion, that the former will leave us disappointed and depressed at the lack of wonder and mystery in the universe, and that the latter will never be satisfying for us in this age of rationality and reason over superstition and blind belief in what people tell us. We have to find our own answers individually about these things, whether that involves accepting arguments from people like this guy and believing them truly, or choosing to believe something else nobody else believes at this time. Just don't get suckered in by salesmen of salvation or people who talk about these things with some kind of finality.

[Lafy BAR]

That guy is pretty clearly trying to sell books to theists who want science to agree with their mumbo jumbo. He uses scientific sounding words without explaining his meaning hoping that you will fill in the missing bits for him. For example his claim that consciousness is quantum information that can leak out of the body and seep back in. What does he mean by quantum information? Even if that did mean something concrete, information always lives in a medium. You can copy a book, an mp3, whatever, but you always copy from a physical medium to a physical medium. There is nothing in physics that suggests that information can float around elsewhere. He tries to argue that the information is transferred into a parallel universe, but even there he would still need a medium. He's claiming the "quantum information" from your brain seeps across the divide between universes and lands somewhere on the other side, but that would require a suitable receptacle for the information. If any of this were to make any sense at all the receptacle would have to be the exact same structure as your brain. If you wanted to save all the "information" in a book by taking the letters off the pages and putting them away for safe keeping a bag wouldn't be a useful place to keep them. Information couldn't survive the trip into the bag and back. So if the structure in the parallel universe has to be identical to your brain, then either what he's suggesting is impossible, or he's going to have to rely on something like the anthropic principle that he was arguing against. Either no structure exists in any parallel universe to store the information, or he has to count on the vastness of the multiverse to provide so many things that the incredibly improbability of another of your brain existing is outweighed by the number of universes.

I don't see how what he's saying is any different from saying that consciousness can enter and leave the body thanks to magic. Using scientific words out of context for an audience of people who don't really know those fields is just trickery. The two slit experiment he referred to says something very specific about particle physics but it says nothing of consciousness, regardless of what he claims. Observation in this context has nothing to do with an observer.

One more thing, for anyone who thinks the fine tuned universe argument makes any sense. It is often argued that the values of the physical constants are highly improbable. The Eiffel Tower is 1063ft tall. What is the probability that it have been that tall? How do you calculate it? Probabilities require that something be able to happen multiple times and that you know the range of possible outcomes. When there's only one of something to consider, you can't say anything at all about probabilities. The multiverse may very well exist, but presently we have no evidence of it. We can't go look at other universes and figure out what the range of possible gravitational constants are. It may be true that if gravity was 2% weaker stars wouldn't form, but how can anyone know if it's possible for gravity to be 2% weaker? In string theory you can do math using a different gravitational constant, but so what? An equation like distance/speed = time will take any numbers you want, if you plug in 5,000 miles per hour as your speed it will give you an answer, but it doesn't mean that the probability of a bicycle travelling 5,000 miles an hour is anything but zero. Without a number of bicycles and cyclists to analyze and gather data about bicycle speeds you can't say much about the probability of a particular cyclist on a particular bike riding any speed. Without data from other universes to compare ours to we can't say anything about the probability of the physical constants being anything at all.

[K. Lloyd]

Arse I've lost the lid for this can of worms.

I must point out that I'm an atheist and believe faith is a crutch for the insane, the morally bereft and the cause of the majority of human suffering. Just a thought provoking (whichever way you approach it) read

I would like to come back or transcend into a TRex... Just saying

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

Arse I've lost the lid for this can of worms.

I must point out that I'm an atheist and believe faith is a crutch for the insane, the morally bereft and the cause of the majority of human suffering. Just a thought provoking (whichever way you approach it) read

I would like to come back or transcend into a TRex... Just saying

I had a teacher of mine tell me my soul must be ancient, says I was probably debating with Socrates back in Ancient Greece and have been reincarnated to this generation. I wouldn't want to be an animal though, not in this time.

Personally, I'm a Polytheist because I want to be different, and because it makes the most sense to me.

[Guest]

I must point out that I'm an atheist and believe faith is a crutch for the insane, the morally bereft and the cause of the majority of human suffering. Just a thought provoking (whichever way you approach it) read

The cause of the majority of human suffering?! Explain that part please.

[K. Lloyd]

I must point out that I'm an atheist and believe faith is a crutch for the insane, the morally bereft and the cause of the majority of human suffering. Just a thought provoking (whichever way you approach it) read

The cause of the majority of human suffering?! Explain that part please.

The Crusades.

Catholics vs Protestants - burnt at the stake

Judaism - blame this religious group for woes round them up and gas them

Croats vs Serbs

Muslim jihads

The genocide in Armenia

These are a few examples of how mankind uses who has the better imaginary friend to bash the other guy over the head with a rock

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

I'd argue that Faith has been used as an excuse for War while there were tangible reasons for the conflicts which aided the process. The Crusades would never have been successful in gaining attention had the Priests not appealed to the Nobles and their desire to prove their might in war and lust for land, power, and glory. Nobles could care less about praying and souls when their material possessions are of more immediate use.

But I'm not going to turn this into a theological debate, because by the end of it we could very likely all be pissed at each other. We each hold our own beliefs, and we shall respect each others' right to hold them. None of us can truly prove to anyone else what lies beyond anyway, we individually reach that conclusion.

[K. Lloyd]

I'd argue that Faith has been used as an excuse for War while there were tangible reasons for the conflicts which aided the process. The Crusades would never have been successful in gaining attention had the Priests not appealed to the Nobles and their desire to prove their might in war and lust for land, power, and glory. Nobles could care less about praying and souls when their material possessions are of more immediate use.

But I'm not going to turn this into a theological debate, because by the end of it we could very likely all be pissed at each other. We each hold our own beliefs, and we shall respect each others' right to hold them. None of us can truly prove to anyone else what lies beyond anyway, we individually reach that conclusion.

Exactly

I believe in nothing... But it is my nothing

Faith/colour/creed we fickle human beings will use any difference as a source of violent inspiration