Life after death is a scientific FACT.

[LuisDantas]

Fear not my understanding, question your own.

Is that supposed to be funny?

 

[LuisDantas]

I propose a different theory...."The Quantum Life Theory".:bunny:

Okay. Provide evidence, define your concepts. Wishful thinking is not enough.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Interesting... Do you believe we moral responsibilities to rocks? Traditional views of morality say no because rocks are not alive/do not have the capacity to suffer. But if everything is alive, don't we have moral responsibilities to "inanimate" objects?

What "inanimate objects"? I know of no such thing. Morality is a human concept. Do bacteria have morals? Do they need to? Why should rocks have need for it either?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Okay. Provide evidence, define your concepts. Wishful thinking is not enough.

I'll write a book, how's that. Sorry if I insulted your intelligence earlier. I was merely overreacting. I respect your opinions, although I may not share them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'll write a book, how's that. Sorry if I insulted your intelligence earlier. I was merely overreacting. I respect your opinions, although I may not share them.

That's a good start, but I must say that you indeed have a poor understanding of science.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That's a good start, but I must say that you indeed have a poor understanding of science.

Perhaps what I DO understand is something beyond science.

My quote... "Quantum physics makes even science seem illogical."

 

[Mr Manson]

Thief here...
(...)
Science and it's methods may be desirable for this topic...
but cannot be applied here.

Can and is applied to everything we know. Scientists struggle to find answers, knowledge, facts, etc, in every possible field of study. Even though there's a tendency to focus mainly on palpable and physical matters, I sincerely disagree with that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps what I DO understand is something beyond science.

My quote... "Quantum physics makes even science seem illogical."

You're more right than you probably would like to. What you propose does indeed go beyond science, and therefore has no scientific credibility.

As for the last sentence, it is a common mistake. Popular misunderstanding of Quantum Physics is that it is some sort of wildcard to allow for anything to happen. Sorry, no such luck.

 

[Im an Atheist]

For me it is not a matter of "is there life after death" or not. There is always life after death, it is even scientifically proven. It is a fact. Everything that exists, even our very own life-force is a form of energy which can neither be created nor destroyed, only change form. Therefore it is merely a question of what will we change into when we die. Personally I tend to agree with the quantum physicists...everything has potential. The universe is full of infinite possibilities. If a simple electron can have the "awareness" to realize there is an observer and be able to change its response, then I am certain that after "death" (changing form) I would most surely be able to retain at least some of my own "awareness". Perhaps not enough awareness to retain previous life memories though, which would make sense anyways as to why people don't generally "remember" their past lives. Even if all the life in the entire Universe was extinguished (died), life would still reappear given enough time and the right conditions. That in itself would be another form of "life after death". But that's my opinion. I don't believe that life after death has to necessarily be equated with the "supernatural". As they say, life goes on... So does that make any logical sense to you? Opinions?

Ok, you can either look at this from a biologists point of view, or a physicists.
Well to be honest, it doesn't matter, there is one big flaw in your story.

You said that energy, a life form, cannot be CREATED or DESTROYED.

1) What is conception?
2) I don't have to be destroyed to be killed

 

[Runewolf1973]

You're more right than you probably would like to. What you propose does indeed go beyond science, and therefore has no scientific credibility.

As for the last sentence, it is a common mistake. Popular misunderstanding of Quantum Physics is that it is some sort of wildcard to allow for anything to happen. Sorry, no such luck.

It is possible that I am wrong in many ways. That is a possibility. I question ALL things including so-called scientific fact, including myself and my own beliefs. I am open to possibilities. Perhaps it is you who just does not understand me.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ok, you can either look at this from a biologists point of view, or a physicists.
Well to be honest, it doesn't matter, there is one big flaw in your story.

You said that energy, a life form, cannot be CREATED or DESTROYED.

1) What is conception?
2) I don't have to be destroyed to be killed

It is rather simple, both are merely energy, that was already present, changing form. Where is the flaw?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

1) What is conception?

When a sperm (Which is just matter) and an egg (Also matter), form to become a zygote (Which too, is matter). Personally, Life (In the form of Aeya) enters the zygote, and this is the start of life. My idea, RuneWolfs, and yours can exists simultaneously

2) I don't have to be destroyed to be killed

You, or what we consider to be you, is just a formation of matter and Aeya. When the matter of you is 'destroyed' all that is really happening is the energy within you is being converted into Aeya. When you are killed, your body stops supporting the Aeya and we consider you to be dead (Base 3).

Even speaking purely physically, when you are killing no matter is destroyed, only ever converted to another form.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but I have a habit of butting in

GhK.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I know this wasn't addressed to me but I have a habit of butting in

GhK.

Not a problem, I appreciate your comments. They make sense to me.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry, but I have yet to see the Empirical Facts leading to your conclusion.
I understand your thinking, however I do see the flaws in your arguments.
To claim life after death as a scientific fact will take more than suppositions, and an unclear understanding of the laws of physics.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sorry, but I have yet to see the Empirical Facts leading to your conclusion.
I understand your thinking, however I do see the flaws in your arguments.
To claim life after death as a scientific fact will take more than suppositions, and an unclear understanding of the laws of physics.

Undoubtedly there are flaws in my arguments, I'll admit that. Are you saying then that science and scientific theory is completely flawless? I see just as many flaws in other peoples attempts to prove me wrong.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Undoubtedly there are flaws in my arguments, I'll admit that. Are you saying then that science and scientific theory is completely flawless? I see just as many flaws in other peoples attempts to prove me wrong.

It is not up to anyone to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself right. All I have done is point out the flaws in your understanding of energy, mass, and the basic concepts of electricity.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is not up to anyone to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself right. All I have done is point out the flaws in your understanding of energy, mass, and the basic concepts of electricity.

Okay, thanks for pointing out the flaws in my understanding. The greatest flaw in one's understanding about anything, is to believe that one's understanding is flawless.

Life after death is surely not a scientific fact.....but I gave it a nice try!

 

[Runewolf1973]

"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.' Well, they don't!"

Richard P. Feynman (1965)

 

[tumbleweed41]

"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.' Well, they don't!"

Richard P. Feynman (1965)

Good thing he was a philosopher and not a scientist.

 

[lunamoth]

Feynman was a talented physicist and I think he was referring to quantum physics when he said that the philosopher quoted was wrong. Just refers to how bizarre and unprecedented QP appears to be.