posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 12:16 PM
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that a 'soul' does exist and that 'it' survives physical death. This concept is certainly not new. I
think it is fair to say that the concept in general is very pervasive throughout world cultures. Every social group puts a different spin on it.
Christianity speaks of God, Jesus, ascension, heaven and hell. More eastern religions tend to speak in terms of reincarnation, a Supreme power, and
adepts who are human, but have developed the ability to understand the nature of reality beyond this one. This is all independent of your or my
belief. It's what our collective culture has given us to work with in terms of the concept alone.
None of these cultures attributes a soul with molecules and atoms. The idea is that the soul is composed of a 'higher' form of matter. Some say this
matter 'vibrates at a higher level.' To our scientific way of thinking statements like that are meaningless. There is no scientific way to validate
the claim of a soul, a few experiments with weights and measures notwithstanding. Science believes it has captured the entire spectrum of vibration,
from infrared to ultraviolet on to cosmic rays at the highest. In the scientific mindset there is no place for the soul to 'vibrate' any higher.
In terms of a higher "plane" or "dimension" this idea, too, has little value in science. Those who attempt to use the multi-dimensional aspects of
String Theory to accommodate this really shouldn't. The extra dimensions of String Theory are extremely tiny. They aren't "dimensions" the way
science fiction authors have portrayed them with literary license. However, String Theory does hint at the possibility of a dimensional aspect to the
universe with its idea of "membranes." In essence, this may be a definitional dispute. String Theory is really beyond experimentation at this stage,
which is one reason it is not fully accepted scientifically. The math works to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, but no one has ever seen a
string, a trace of a string, or anything close because they are too tiny for us to detect with current equipment.
The point is that at least at the bleeding edge of physics there is a faint hint of an inter-dimensional quality to the universe that could
potentially accommodate a 'place' that is not of the three dimensions plus time we experience in our corner of the universe and here on earth.
Couple that with the rich and pervasive tradition of the idea of souls arisen from human culture and I think you at least have the basis to consider
the idea, knowing that not only is it not proven, it cannot be proven under present circumstances of scientific or technological development.
IF the nature of Capital-R Reality is as described above, then it has been that way well prior to the advent of any technological civilization. Matter
does not need civilization to exist, though there are some ideas that it needs 'thought' or that 'thought creates reality.'
What we have here, though, is a speculation that a physical three-dimensional 'tower' has been built on our Moon thet serves to ferry souls from one
place to another. Its structure and the mechanics of its operation are shrouded in mystery. How would it work? No one can say, except for one
It doesn't make sense.
Why would you need a physical entity in our spacetime to 'ferry' souls, which are not of this spacetime, from one place to another? It would seem
totally unnecessary. If a soul does exist in another plane of existence, it wouldn't need a physical electro-mechanical device in THIS plane of
existence to help it along.
The Soul Tower is pure abject speculation. It certainly does not fit into current scientific thought on the composition of the Universe. But it also
does not fit into the composite religious thought on the nature of the soul. It is an anachronistic piece of equipment that does not fit either the
scientific or religious concepts of reality. In other words, the evidence we have would seem to suggest both that a tower is not necessary and that
further, it does not exist.
What we have are a few people (a VERY few) who 'believe' such a tower exists and 'believe' it has some sort of Soul Catcher purpose. That's the
nature of the evidence thus far. It is not incumbent on anyone else to disprove the tower. No one has to take their own spacecraft to the alleged
location of the tower, take pictures, and say, "See? No tower!" No one is required to do that.
The great thinkers the world has produced have often come up with what were initially termed Crazy Ideas, new paradigms that could not easily be
accepted initially. Examples include evolution, relativity, and the heliocentric solar system. But they didn't expect people to just believe them.
They proved their Crazy Ideas to the point that there was no wiggle room. They proved with experiment, observation, and mathematics that their Crazy
Ideas formed a picture of reality that was valid. Newton did that. Einstein superceded Newton. Now String Theory seems to supercede Einstein. In all
cases, Reality has been shown to incorporate previous valid ideas into a broader structure.
Even the Church leaders knew Galileo was right. They just didn't want to let it out because they felt the public couldn't handle it. (Sound
familiar?). As one physicist put it, "Nature is not the way it is because it is, it is the way it is because it has to be." We have discovered some
truths about the nature of the universe. Certainly there is much more to discover.
But the point is, if you've got a Crazy Idea, it is incumbent on you to prove it. Telling other people who disbelieve your Crazy Idea that it is
their responsibility to prove the negative is not an example of logical thought. Speculate all you want, but don't expect anyone else to believe your
Crazy Idea until YOU can prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Unless you can do better than you have so far, the idea of a Soul Tower is still an
idea that is Crazy.
[edit on 9/11/2007 by schuyler]