It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Proof Life is Eternal

page: 2
10
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 02:09 PM
edit on 3 17 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 06:42 PM

The proof you look for doesn't exist because there is no such thing as the proof you are looking for. What in life can you say is definite?

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 06:43 PM

I am not referring to life as what NASA define. But more of a consciousness.

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 06:47 PM
maxwells-equations.com...

Does this meaning anything to you guys? Prob doesn't serve as proof, but for some it's proof. Claiming the proof isn't there just because You can't understand. The equation is there, you just need to understand it.

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 06:48 PM

how does a 3d character explain to a 2d character what 3d is?

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 06:55 PM
Here it is in math aspect.

Case 1: it is a constant 1 = life

Case 2:
If 0 (no life), can become 1, then becomes 0 again.
Then we can conclude the cycle can and will repeats.
And it occurs randomly.
The only question is time. How long would it take before rebirth.
Since Time gaps are irrelevant to 0's (dead people). There is no time gaps. Thus in your own consciousness there is no 0's, only 1's.
Thus it is a constant 1.
Thus repeats for eternity.

I'll make a video later to illustrate this idea.

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 07:07 PM

Neighbour ... neither a video, nor pseudo-logical shenanigans constitute proof.

posted on Mar, 17 2016 @ 07:26 PM

originally posted by: reddragon2015

I am not referring to life as what NASA define. But more of a consciousness.

So you are not referring to life at all, you are referring to consciousness, which is an emergent feature of life, and just as temporal.

originally posted by: reddragon2015
maxwells-equations.com...

Does this meaning anything to you guys? Prob doesn't serve as proof, but for some it's proof. Claiming the proof isn't there just because You can't understand. The equation is there, you just need to understand it.

It is not enough to quote an equation out of context and call it proof. Ironically this demonstrates that you don't understand the equation or know what the meaning of a "proof" is. The burden is on you to demonstrate how this constitutes as proof.. You need to explain how this equation relates a calculation of life at all.

This equation is a mathematical proof of functions that have the form of f(z-ct) fitting with wave equations. It is one of the equations used by James Clerk Maxwell in his mathematical investigations of electromagnetic radiation.

Are you suggesting that life, or rather, "more of a consciousness" as you seem to define it, is an electromagnetic waveform? What is the basis for this claim? Have you any studies to reference that demonstrate consciousness is fundamentally an electromagnetic waveform?

originally posted by: reddragon2015
Here it is in math aspect.

Case 1: it is a constant 1 = life

Case 2:
If 0 (no life), can become 1, then becomes 0 again.
Then we can conclude the cycle can and will repeats.
And it occurs randomly.
The only question is time. How long would it take before rebirth.
Since Time gaps are irrelevant to 0's (dead people). There is no time gaps. Thus in your own consciousness there is no 0's, only 1's.
Thus it is a constant 1.
Thus repeats for eternity.

This is incomprehensible. This is not an argument of deductive logical reasoning. It's not a "math aspect". It's nonsensical.

I'll make a video later to illustrate this idea.

How about you start by learning the objective definitions of the terms you use, the context of the mathematical formula you reference, and the practice of employing logical reasoning to arrive at a conclusion.

Then you can write it all out properly for us, so we can actually help you, and understand what you are talking about.
edit on 17-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:59 AM

originally posted by: spygeek
This is incomprehensible. This is not an argument of deductive logical reasoning. It's not a "math aspect". It's nonsensical.

Agreed. He isn't using math, he's using the number 1 and the number 0 as metaphors for existence and non existence, things that cannot be quantified.

He is looking at it through a something from nothing standpoint, which hardly anybody even believes. But if consciousness is really a product of the brain as all current evidence suggests, then it comes from the brain, not from nothing. And that brain came from the development of a fetus, from sperm and egg combining DNA, which evolved over time. The something from nothing argument is really a strawman. Nobody knows if a soul even exists. Humans just have a need to feel special.
edit on 3 20 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

10