Theory of a scientific afterlife.

Simply because you claim that something must exist because of your gut feeling, without any evidence. Someone claiming that something does not exist because there is no evidence that it does is VERY different to someone else claiming that something does exist because there is no evidence that it doesn't. By the logic of the second example I could claim that an invisible untouchable dwarf that looks like Megaman lives in my speakers, just because there's no evidence it doesn't.

Also, two interesting (note: interesting, not neccesarily accurate or true) articles for:

-the guy that said that he might be recreated again, click here http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm and select the article named "Eternity" under "Space"

-the guy that said the universe is too perfect to not be created by someone, clickie the same link as the guy above and go to "Big Rip" under "Space"

 

So would being ground into fertilizer had having a tree planted on your grave. It's still nothing like religious afterlife.

 

Mod note: Cut out the "supreme being" talk, unless you want to put it in another thread. It is way offtopic on this thread.

--

Actually, I think it would mainly be the religious forum. Mainstream modern Philosophy, just like modern Science has been highly atheistic for a long time. Serious philosophers will actually take the time to lean cutting-edge science, in order to see how what we know affects we way we view the world.

My Metaphysics professor said, at the beginning of the semester, something along the lines of, "if you're religious, you're probably going to have some trouble understanding a lot of the stuff in this class."

Anyway, this particular metaphysical problem is something that hasn't been sorted out. Some (a minority of) models would say that an exact copy with the same physical makeup would be the same "person." Most others, however, would not, because there lacks a certain continuity between the former person and the later person.

 

you're as much to blame. now you two cut it out before i lock this thread, too. It takes two to argue, if you don't like it, ignore it. And you must accept some people will take it religiously. I was the one who locked it because you two were arguing, not him. I was the one who made the decision, because i am a mod, not him. Keep it clean and it'll all be good. i don't mind discussions on it, but i mind all the arguing.

 

I'm not the one who locked that thread and no I don't detour everything into religion as you claim either. I'm pretty sure talking about atheists and Christians has to do with religion as does an afterlife. Even a scientific belief of the universe could be considered a type of religion. I havn't turned anything into religion that already wasn't in the first place.

The only thing I am asking, is for people to follow the forum rules because lately it doesn't seem like anyone cares.

 

From phylosophical point of view I could see your point but from strictly scientific I dont think so. Unless we find out that brain works with some metaphysical/supernatural components it should be able to exactly duplicate human body including the memories and though processes.
Its mostly just chemistry and electricity. Of course you ahve to be able to duplicate every last electron with all the momentum and such which probably wont be possible in practise but hypothetically if you can manage to do that the person IS as real as the original.
Then again from phisolophical point of view, the copied person hasnt been to the same places the original person was, he didnt meet the same people etc, but the memories and physical remnants of these events is there.

Aight Kurai, Pancake, obviously people returned to the topic, including me, so please you guys stick to it as well.

 

don't tell me what to do, i know what this thread is about, also use the edit button. I'm just addign a warning besides neon's.

anyway, i've thought of that, too. Our bodies are made up of atoms and particles and other things Even if our makeup is recycled, though, does that mean anything? The iron in our bones will dissolve into the ground when we die, and will be absorbed by plants, which people and animals eat, and thus our bodies are being recycled. but as for the conscious thoughts and all that? i don't think so.

Being and consciousness are terms humans use to try and understand it all. Our 'consciousness' is our mind, it's made of waves and comprehension and other things we learn. it's stored in our brain as patterns and symbols and emotion and other things. Our brains will be recycled, but when we die, the waves and chem reactions eventually cease. People recycle ideas, in a way, though. like how one person teaches another and such. But i doubt our ideas would come together. i suppose if you look at it, we're all really very old. we have things in us that have been used and recycled and passed down from gen to gen.

As for recreating in the same way? no two snowflakes are alike ^ ^

 

I have a question... since you are concerned about de-particlelization, what if we can be departiclelized like the TV signals in a wave form?? I mean, if everybody's reception is the same then I'm sure that it is a possibility that by through waves we can be departicled and reformed in a same manner... just maybe

 

1. Dont double post Higgs, that is why we have the "edit" button.
2. I dont have time to read every single post, I did read the first page however.
3. This is take straight from wikipedia, and....my friend. Wikipedia does not lie. The afterlife (also referred to as life after death, the hereafter, or the great unknown) is the belief consciousness and/or mind of a being continues after biological death occurs. Major views on the afterlife derive from religion, esotericism and metaphysics. In many popular views, this continued existence often takes place in a spiritual or immaterial realm.
As it says "the after life (also referred to as life after death, the hereafter, or the great uknown) is the beliefe consciousness and/or mind of a being continues after biological death occurs". As someone else had said, every moment is unique no where in the universe is exactly the same at the same time or at any time. Meaning your view of us going into something else for a so called "after life" Is flawed. We would have to be the exact same and such, as the defenition said "is the beliefe that are conciousness and/or mind of a being (us) continues" You implied that are bodys go into other things and we have an "afterlife"........its not possible as to what your saying.

 

wikie doens't lie? LOL

well i think he means a non spiritual one. like he said a 'scientific one'. there's just not a better way to really put it

 

To the OP, Nietzsche had a theory of the 'eternal recurrence' that if time is infinite and matter is finite, then your life would be repeated infinitely, due to the eventual repetition of patterns. I wouldn't call this an afterlife precisely because there is no continuity of memory-- the same thing happens--therefore it is a reccurrence of life. You could call all reccurrences 'afterlifes' that recur after the original happening---but there would no way to tell if what your'e living now is the original or a reccurence.


For the people a saying this is grossly unlikely, you must also appreciate that eternity has all sorts of patience for infinitesimal chances.

I do wonder if it is indeed untrue that infinite time and finite matter wouldn't produce infinite circumstances. If you repeat your life, then you also repeat every slight variation of your life that is possible. It makes me doubt that are a finite amount of variations.

 

You overlook the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

edit: otherwise you are probably right, with infinite time and matter you will indeed end up with identical person from scientific point of view (then again philosophy might lead you to different conclusion) but current laws of physics kind of prevent that from happening, or at least it would have to happen in very finite amount of time where the probability does come in play.

 

Well at least one person can kind of get what I am saying. Its not a matter of IF the same life occurrences will happen again its simply a matter of when. Eventually it would happen, because if the universe goes on for eternity. Then it would eventually recreate the same circumstances that created who we are.

 

that was a rule made a loooong-looooong time ago,
the forums today is a bit more considerate as long as its a sensible discussion

 

Suffice to say, I know very little about physics. Is it fair to say there would be no reccurrence if matter reached a 'fixed state' and is this the natural conclusion of the second law? That if the universe is a closed system it will reach a point of equilibrium?

I don't see how probability would come into play (in this edited scenario) if time is infinite-- there would be infinite chances of recurrence happening---it would happen eventually and infinitely.

 

My point was that there is time limit to the whole thing. After enough time the space will become too sparse and the quality of the energy too low to form complicated things such as human body. Hence you lose the infinite time argument in which probability doesnt really matter sinc ewith infinite time, even events with astronomically small chance are bound to happen.

 

Higgs that is only if the universe is in fact an open universe and not a closed. If its a closed on then it will collapse and the energy would never become sparse.

 

No its not only because of the energy is becoming sparse and stretched out, there is fundamental laws of physics which causes all the energy in the universe to irreversibly degrade over time. And even if we overlook this the mere fact that it would collapse would give it finite time span.

 

Yes but then it would create another big bang. Thus releasing the energies all over again... Thus it repeats.

 

And I still have problems with the name of this thread. Even if it did happen - its not an afterlife. You simply used the wrong word.