No debate anymore?

[Apologes]

Old hat, try some modern research


There is NO life after death: Scientist [Carroll] insists afterlife is IMPOSSIBLE

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ath-what-happens-when-you-die-quantum-physics

He [Carroll] said: “Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there's no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die.”

I'm pretty sure the same thing was stated in the article presented by the OP and that this was the statement I was actually refering to it when I said Carroll was acting funny.

To be fair Carroll himself hints at quantum mechanics being able to solve this supposed problem which in a way undercuts his assertion considering how these "everyday physics" need not be all there is to consciousness.

Even if "everyday physics" were all that makes consciousness tick, understanding that from which a phenomena arises doesn't mean understanding the phenomena itself. Hence why influential people who are very well aware of "everyday physics" like De Grasse Tyson are so skeptical of consciousness that they don't even think it exists.

The whole argument spirals into irrelevance if one is not (unlike Carroll) a naturalist and is instead open to the existence of God and miracles. Seeing how most people who believe in afterlife believe in these two the claim that the laws of physics wouldn't allow consciousness to survive on its own is hardly problematic as I myself do not think the soul is something immortal in principle but is instead miraculously brought up by an omnipotent God in a way Joseph Ratzinger put it in his Introduction to Christianity.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm pretty sure the same thing was stated in the article presented by the OP and that this was the statement I was actually refering to it when I said Carroll was acting funny.

To be fair Carroll himself hints at quantum mechanics being able to solve this supposed problem which in a way undercuts his assertion considering how these "everyday physics" need not be all there is to consciousness.

Even if "everyday physics" were all that makes consciousness tick, understanding that from which a phenomena arises doesn't mean understanding the phenomena itself. Hence why influential people who are very well aware of "everyday physics" like De Grasse Tyson are so skeptical of consciousness that they don't even think it exists.

The whole argument spirals into irrelevance if one is not (unlike Carroll) a naturalist and is instead open to the existence of God and miracles. Seeing how most people who believe in afterlife believe in these two the claim that the laws of physics wouldn't allow consciousness to survive on its own is hardly problematic as I myself do not think the soul is something immortal in principle but is instead miraculously brought up by an omnipotent God in a way Joseph Ratzinger put it in his Introduction to Christianity.

Is what what you were saying, it came across as complely opposite. Glad thats cleared up.

There are plenty of experiments on consciousness, google scholar lists over 400,000 papers.

Very few scientists will accept bronze age god magic without evidence. Its not a point of being open, its a point the facts or information being verifiable

Ratzniger??? The catholic churches grand inquisitor become pope... Im sure he must be unbiased.

 

[Apologes]

There are plenty of experiments on consciousness, google scholar lists over 400,000 papers.

And? There's a lot more on the origin of the universe but hardly anyone would call that a settled issue?

Very few scientists will accept bronze age god magic without evidence. Its not a point of being open, its a point the facts or information being verifiable

Carroll's conclusion is just as non-verifiable as his naturalism.

Ratzniger??? The catholic churches grand inquisitor become pope... Im sure he must be unbiased.

He is very much so, though it's irrelevant to the point that I made. Besides, you're pretty biased yourself as you condenscendingly assumed all literature published by religious people is biased.

Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't believe that anyone has ever presented evidence for Nothing as having ever been a state of reality. There has always been Something.

Has someone presented evidence that there has always been something, then?

 

[ChristineM]

And? There's a lot more on the origin of the universe but hardly anyone would call that a settled issue?



Carroll's conclusion is just as non-verifiable as his naturalism.



He is very much so, though it's irrelevant to the point that I made. Besides, you're pretty biased yourself as you condenscendingly assumed all literature published by religious people is biased.

Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?

Of course the origin of the universe is unknown. "Unknown" thats why cosmologists dont guess.

Carrolls conclusions are based on science.

No its its not irrelevant.

I dont believe all religious writers are biased,only the biassed ones. So i hope you feel better for accusing me

 

[Apologes]

Of course the origin of the universe is unknown. "Unknown" thats why cosmologists dont guess.

So you bringing up the fact that a lot of papers were written on consciousness does nothing to challenge the fact that we know very little about consciousness.

Carrolls conclusions are based on science.

As I said, our current knowledge isn't enough to warrant his strong conclusion. Naturalism on the other hand is unverifiable as a matter of principle.

I dont believe all religious writers are biased,only the biassed ones. So i hope you feel better for accusing me

I literally posted a direct link to your post so here are your words again:

"I certainly think all religious publishing is biased in favour of that religion. So you think otherrwise?"

Should I accuse you of lying as well?

 

[dfnj]

I love it, you are stuck so you resort to the underhanded creationist method of making up seemingly impossible questions so you can pat yourself on the back. Only they are not impossible, they are well understood.
Atoms stay together because neutrons and protrons protrons are positively charged.

Even though you are disrespectful to me I will try not to be disrespectful to you. If what you are saying were so simple, then nothingness would have been the only thing to exist and continue to exist. If what you are saying is so simple then the Big Bang would not have gone bang.

As I said, the problem with your way of thinking is objectivity works without subjectivity. For objectivity to work you absolutely must have a rigidly defined context of measurement. The problem is you then extend your belief system to conclude truth of your beliefs does not require a context. There are assumptions being made which may only be true in a limited way.

I'm not as fervent believer in my dogma as you are in your dogma. So I wasn't really "pat yourself on the back". I've always had a problem with people saying the language we use to explain "how" nature behaves also explains "why" nature behaves. How nature behaves only occurs in a well defined context. Why nature behaves has no context. I just have a different opinion than you about the omnipotent powers of objectivity.

 

[dfnj]

Is what what you were saying, it came across as complely opposite. Glad thats cleared up.

There are plenty of experiments on consciousness, google scholar lists over 400,000 papers.

Just because 400,000 people share the same delusions doesn't make it true. It seems to me if consciousness were so simple as the materialists and realists think it is, then we would have hard artificial intelligence systems. As far as everything I've ever read, science has not cracked the "hard problem" of why the brain has consciousness at all.

 

[dfnj]

Carrolls conclusions are based on science.

He killed himself but his paper on the subject was never published after having conducted the experiment is his evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Even though you are disrespectful to me I will try not to be disrespectful to you. If what you are saying were so simple, then nothingness would have been the only thing to exist and continue to exist. If what you are saying is so simple then the Big Bang would not have gone bang.

As I said, the problem with your way of thinking is objectivity works without subjectivity. For objectivity to work you absolutely must have a rigidly defined context of measurement. The problem is you then extend your belief system to conclude truth of your beliefs does not require a context. There are assumptions being made which may only be true in a limited way.

I'm not as fervent believer in my dogma as you are in your dogma. So I wasn't really "pat yourself on the back". I've always had a problem with people saying the language we use to explain "how" nature behaves also explains "why" nature behaves. How nature behaves only occurs in a well defined context. Why nature behaves has no context. I just have a different opinion than you about the omnipotent powers of objectivity.

Have i been disrespectful? I apologise if you believe so, i usually adopt an equivalent tone to the post i am replying to.

You misunderstanding of conditions immediately after the bb is your problem here. Atoms did not exist.

And please dont make guesses about my stance on the bb. I know 28 different possible scenarios of how the bb occured, only 1 requires nothing. Which contrary to your claim would not result in nothing.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

I actually prefer that of Dr Mersini-Houghtons theory which of colliding universes which has the advant of physical evidence in artifacts of our universe such as the bruising on the cmb and the vast swaith of galaxies moving contrary to the expansion of the universe.

And yes, objectivity works, it is measurable and observable.

 

[ChristineM]

Just because 400,000 people share the same delusions doesn't make it true. It seems to me if consciousness were so simple as the materialists and realists think it is, then we would have hard artificial intelligence systems. As far as everything I've ever read, science has not cracked the "hard problem" of why the brain has consciousness at all.

You are making wild jumps if ignorance here.

No one said consciousness were simple, ask any neuroscientist. But its source is known to be in parts of the brain. How and why is as yet unknown.

Actually you use AI systems all the time.

 

[ChristineM]

He killed himself but his paper on the subject was never published after having conducted the experiment is his evidence.

The Carroll im talking about and providing links to, Sean M Carroll, is still alive and publishing work

Here is one from earlier this year
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05016

Edit this happens to be a paper touching on the subject

 

[Apologes]

Just because 400,000 people share the same delusions doesn't make it true.

Those 400 000 papers weren't even arguing for the same things but were just tagged as discussing consciousness in some way. If there were an actual concensus on the topic then she would have a point but of course there is none.

 

[siti]

Gluons and the Strong force have to come from somewhere. God is a good of an explanation as any other words.

I thought they were blood products...oops - no - that was another thread...but really God is not an explanation at all - its a way of avoiding having to find or understand an explanation...

...and of course, had we had this discussion 500 years ago it would have been about rainbows and earthquakes rather than gluons and strong force - same (lack of) argument to explain a different mystery.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Has someone presented evidence that there has always been something, then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

[Milton Platt]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

So this law actually applies to an isolated system. Can you demonstrate that the known universe is an isolated system? I'm not necessary disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm wanting to know how you came up with a definitive answer that cosmologists cannot agree on.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So this law actually applies to an isolated system. Can you demonstrate that the known universe is an isolated system? I'm not necessary disagreeing with your conclusion, I'm wanting to know how you came up with a definitive answer that cosmologists cannot agree on.

I cannot say that the Universe is definitively an open or closed system anymore than anyone else can. (I actually lean towards it being open...) But whatever effect that might have on our current understanding of physics seems negligible to nonexistent. From our perspective, not matter how limited, the law of conservation of energy still applies nicely, even in situations that tend to refute it's universal application.

Also, I'm not saying that I've come up with a definitive answer. But, factually, there's no explanatory system in place that accounts for a period of nothingness as having ever been a part of reality. That's true regardless of the holes of knowledge that currently (and might always) exist.

If the Universe is an open system, we're just met with one more level of questioning as to where the energy for other impacting systems came from, right? In a situation like this, where we have a constantly revolving door of compounding questions, it's safer to err of the side of the known, than to extrapolate into the unknown, where all conclusions are just wild guesses.

 

[Milton Platt]

I cannot say that the Universe is definitively an open or closed system anymore than anyone else can. (I actually lean towards it being open...) But whatever effect that might have on our current understanding of physics seems negligible to nonexistent. From our perspective, not matter how limited, the law of conservation of energy still applies nicely, even in situations that tend to refute it's universal application.

Also, I'm not saying that I've come up with a definitive answer. But, factually, there's no explanatory system in place that accounts for a period of nothingness as having ever been a part of reality. That's true regardless of the holes of knowledge that currently (and might always) exist.

If the Universe is an open system, we're just met with one more level of questioning as to where the energy for other impacting systems came from, right? In a situation like this, where we have a constantly revolving door of compounding questions, it's safer to err of the side of the known, than to extrapolate into the unknown, where all conclusions are just wild guesses.

Yeah, I should not have used the word definitive. That was sorta straw-maning you. I don't like it when people do that to me. The reason asked about the universe being open or closed as a system, is that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. Further, the universe is expanding, literally space itself is expanding, so that is another wrinkle.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yeah, I should not have used the word definitive. That was sorta straw-maning you. I don't like it when people do that to me. The reason asked about the universe being open or closed as a system, is that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. Further, the universe is expanding, literally space itself is expanding, so that is another wrinkle.

No worries. The way we take conversations on the internet will vary wildly from day to day.
Between the two of us, we've contributed nearly 8,500 posts to RF. I'm sure we've both been the victim and the aggressor at points of conversation.

I think it's an insanely interesting subject and I'd like to spend more of my time on these forums discussing the nature of reality than debating the merits of Young Earth Creationism, you know what I mean?

What is the Universe expanding into?
Is that even a sensible question?
Is Universal retraction a possibility?
Is there a limit to it's expanse?
How could that limit exist? How could it not?
Like we observe in other natural systems, from the microscopic to the macroscopic, is our Universe noting more than a part of a much larger set of systems? (Note that at every level we can imagine, there are systems above each given studied system, and we've yet to observe a limit...)

There are much more interesting things to talk about than god.

 

[paarsurrey]

You've succeeded in doing that?
Pretty tough, binary thinking is so deeply
characteristic of fundamentalists.

Who are they?
Regards