posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:36 PM
I get the feeling you're trying to conflate some sort of Blavatsky-ite definition of energy and the physics definition of energy, which is an
unfortunate side-effect of paranormalists using scientific terms.
When you say "we are energy in a state of de-coherence", what does that mean to you? It's tough to answer your question coherently otherwise, pun
I've seen you post this statement before but it doesn't have any real meaning to me, and I actually do this stuff for a living. It looks like
you're sort of combining some poorly-understood quantum physics with mysticism, in a string of what look to me to be non-sequiturs. For example:
"We also have the Louis deBroglie who showed that matter has a wave-like nature and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in physics and it was
later proven by Thomson and Davisson. So we have a wave that doesn't die when we die it just transitions to a different energy state."
The first non-sequitur of course, is that you are reading deBroglie with maybe .01% understanding, seeing this "wave" word, equating it with some
Blavatsky-ish "wave" or "energy", and claiming some part of your being is a wave of this nature. The mistake may be a natural one, Blavatsky and
her contemporaries arrogated a number of scientific terms in order to try to associate their beliefs with science. But matter waves and consciousness
aren't related, and nothing says your "spirit" or whathaveyou has a wave-like nature of any sort. So that's an unwarranted assumption, IMO.
Finally, you have another non-sequitur in that having made the assumption that some part of your being is 'a wave', that it will behave in the same
way as another unrelated phenomenon's 'wave' does.
That's a lot of wild unsupportable leaps.
The short answer of course, is that the energy is sitting right there in your corpus. It's chock full of chemical energy. That's why you rot - lots
of critters find you a marvelous source of energy, and eat you.
The longer answer would entail actually explaining deBroglie waves, which is more than likely a fruitless task.
Why not reach a philosophical understanding of your mortality based on philosophy, and not try to bring science in as proof? Because if you're going
to do that properly, it's a long row to hoe - you really need to understand physics and biology first, and even then you're going to have to answer
"what is the nature of consciousness, the spirit, and the soul - in terms of physics", not just using terms FROM physics, there's a difference.
From what I've seen of it, you can't get any two scientists to agree. It ranges from "you just THINK you're thinking, there is no consciousness at
all" to "you are a receiver for some other quantum process" at the other. They all have flaws - for example the quantum process one (Tipler, I
think) is pretty Cartesian and ends up with the same regression issue you end up with "homunculi" - and the only answers end up very similar to it
being turtles all the way down.