It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Death doesn't make sense according to physics

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


So Spoodily, please tell me, what surrounds this "fifth" dimension?

And what surrounds this entirety?

With your logic, everything must be surrounded by something.

So, this fifth dimension must be surrounded by something or not?

Also the term "dimension" you use, what is its meaning?

We are talking about an extra dimension of space or something else?

Your whole theory falls short because it contradicts itself by the very reason you use it.

As you theory goes, there could be infinite numbers of extra dimensions, each one surrounding the others. The "extra dimensional" energy that created our 4D universe and our souls could very well originated from the 128743243242nd dimension, which surroundes the remaining 128743243241 dimensions, then making 128743243237 transitions to arrive in our 4D plane.

But what surrounds this very first dimension that surrounds all the others?

Your theory tries to give answers to the questions of our existance by recreating exactly the same questions on a different level


[edit on 20-9-2007 by panther512]




posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

What is the definition of "alive"?

Do you know?

What is the definition of "energy"?

And for both, I mean the scientific definition. Not the woo-woo paranormal one.


Tom that's exactly what I was driving at.

There is a break down in communication and definitions, or explanations and conclusions between scientific and metaphysics, which at the moment are like Catholics and Muslims, only agreeing on a few things. Most of us have different definitions of what things are, so what we are left with is different levels of understanding that separate us.

Is anyone wrong? It just depends on what basis or platform people use to understand and explain their position.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by nanoha

But i'm not sure whether there exist souls if we died?



No worries I don't think a single living person can really prove very much, since every one of the five physical senses we have can be deceived.

I really get a kick out of Psychologist's and Psychiatrist's too, talk about grabbing at straws.

The only thing I can say in terms of trying to explain if the souls exists first you need a definition of a soul, then after that ask it you have one. At this point you have to ask yourself this question.

Out of nothing comes what? ..................nothing, if you are something can you go back into nothing, in a logical sense no you can't, because that would make nothing something now.

This debate has gone on since the time of Aristotle, but in the end it is what you believe is true.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I would rather compare the human body to a rechargable battery.
You're a walking device with some equipment that needs to be powered, by you, the battery.

Your ''battery'' gets charged by eating.
And eventually, like a real battery, it depletes.
If you have too little energy, like a real batter, the thing you are powering (your body) switches ''off'' (however unlike a Gameboy, you do not remain in a permanent state of non-decomposing lol)

So now ask yourself, what happens to the ''energy'' in the battery when it depletes.
Does the energy itself deplete as well?
No, it just changes state or property or w/e you want to call it.
And because it changed state or property it becomes ''incompatible'' with what the device that depends on the battery uses.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


In an earlier post you made the following statement:


Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Until you can show that the soul/consciousness/spirit/whatever is actually some weird manifestation of the strong force or something, it isn't really a physics sort of thing.


That is one fine piece of clever language. It is as deceptive as anything I have ever seen, and it is dangerously persuasive to those who are ill-equipped to recognize its imposition. The statement is obviously a joke. I'm not sure if it's intentional or instead you chose to use it for the sake of confusion and bolstering your ego, or all three. Anyway, your argument commits at least a couple of errors.

First, the deduction is invalid: The fact of something, e.g., "a physics sort of thing", does not rest on the indeterminate amount of time it takes a person to show "that the soul/consciousness/spirit/whatever is actually some weird manifestation of the strong force or something". If you do not know the nature of the phenomenon that you refer to in your premise, then your conclusion cannot define the phenomenon as being subject to the laws of physics or not. You can only refer to its status as being unknown. You cannot reasonably state that it exists or does not exist.

Second, it's a fallacy: What are you arguing for or against with this argument? The statement is amphibolous because it can be interpreted as either true or false. The premise and the conclusion are ambiguous. For example, what exactly is "really a physics sort of thing"? Are you talking about quantum phenomena, a desk, the imprint of a deceased person's history on the present?

Your argument about the flatulence of fairies is irrelevant given the context of my statements the argument refers to. Is consciousness energy or is it not energy? Do not pretend that you did not understand when I said that you do not offer what consciousness is not. I referred to the post where you responded to polomontana with:


Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
...until you can show what you're talking about - life, spirit, or whatever - actually IS, then you can't declare it is a wave, or energy, or a soliton, or whatever else the buzzword is this year.


For some reason you love playing word games of ambiguity. I could ask, what is "IS"? Or, what is "actually IS"? Anyway, I do not hold that your failure to offer up a model of consciousness, the productions of consciousness, and the conditions that permit consciousness to exist are proof that fairies and fairy farts exist. I asked a question, where is your supporting evidence for what consciousness is not? If you can answer that, then it's possible that I would be better able to understand why consciousness cannot be declared as being energy of some kind? You have succeed in doing exactly what polomontana has succeeded in doing, you both have not shown what consciousness is or is not. Which makes both of your positions arbitrary from the standpoint of who declares and who does not declare what consciousness can be identified as. One makes a choice without proof or evidence to declare what consciousness is. The other makes a choice without proof or evidence to declare what consciousness cannot be declared as. This sounds very much like philosophy and very much like beliefs, though it may not, from either point of view, be either.





[edit on 20-9-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51


In an earlier post you made the following statement:



If you do not know the nature of the phenomenon that you refer to in your premise, then your conclusion cannot define the phenomenon as being subject to the laws of physics or not. You can only refer to its status as being unknown. You cannot reasonably state that it exists or does not exist.


Jacques Derrida is tap-dancing with glee in his tomb over this statement, for it is co-identical with my position, which I have been repeatedly expressing.

Please tell this to Polo. Again, and again.

And while you probably didn't intend it so, as Derrida would say, a writer often expresses something true that they didn't intend.



Second, it's a fallacy: What are you arguing for or against with this argument?


It should be obvious, even to the casual observer. One cannot defend the position that "a soul/consciousness/pneuma/ka is energy and is thus subject to the laws of thermodynamics" unless one is ready to define what sort of energy one is discussing. Well, not and be taken seriously. Thus the flatus comment. One can say anything one likes, but something as groundless as this Polo's position is near meaningless. See your comment above.

Physics deals with a set of known types of energy. Which sort is Polo (or yourself) proposing it is? My point, also expressed repeatedly, is that the theosophic/new-age use of "energy" is inapplicable in a physics discussion, as it is not a proper use of the term. Thus one cannot mix theosophy with thermodynamics and have a consistent viewpoint - it is not a physics sort of thing.



Your argument about the flatulence of fairies is irrelevant given the context of my statements the argument refers to. Is consciousness energy or is it not energy? Do not pretend that you did not understand when I said that you do not offer what consciousness is not.


Incorrect. One simply cannot bandy thermodynamics in a discussion wherein one is using new-age terms which mimic physics terms. If you or Polo are prepared to define which sort of energy - beyond that one might see under "metaphysics" - then we can discuss it in a meaningful way. But if not, then it's simply noise.





I asked a question, where is your supporting evidence for what consciousness is not? If you can answer that, then it's possible that I would be better able to understand why consciousness cannot be declared as being energy of some kind?


Are you seriously proposing that I prove a negative without a canonical listing of the contents of the universe?

It would depend on your understanding level of physics. But let's start here - a static state is not a process.

Consider your computer. Disregarding dynamic storage, if I stop the clock on the logic, no further processing will occur. The information will endure, and if restarted, the computer will take up where it left off (within limitations not covered in this analogy). During this time, it will assume a "state". But nothing occurs.

I am not certain what a "soul" is - neither is anyone else on the thread - and thus I cannot comment on its nature in a positive sense. If one considers it co-identical with "consciousness" and therefore not metaphysical, then it cannot be defined by a single state.

What each sort of energy can do depends on the energy - thus my futile attempt to get some sort of indication from polo which he believes it is. Some are obviously not it - the potential energy of gravity for example. But in any case, it's obviously not a "state", and there is a good bit of evidence that it is a biological process caused by parallel processing in your neural net. There are far more cites for this than need be listed - go google for "nature of consciousness neuron" and stick with scholarly journals.

Tipler tried in vain to find some bridge between quantum physics and thought, at least in terms of his Cartesian duality model. However, consider that I can change the nature of your behavior by altering your neural network, either by chemical or physical alterations. Unless one is willing to claim that the whole of quantum physics is thus altered, it seems amazingly unlikely.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edited formatting)

[edit on 20-9-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Tom Bedlam
 


The frequency of time. Get it? Time is every frequency there is. In linear time we live only in the present. Everything in the universe is in the present. Every possibility of this universe is contained within that one dimensional point.

Frequency requires time to manifest itself, the elongation of time creates reality as we know it. The beginning of the universe was zero point, infinite in amplitude without any length.

[edit on 9/20/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by panther512
 


Can you imagine our universe with its boundary of time as a one dimensional point creating another universe around it? The system is infinite.

They are called dimensions because they are not in the same reality. They can occupy the same area but are not of the same universe.

A universe is a stand alone system with an input and an output.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
the energy doesn't die it just becomes changes state when we die we decompose and form another energy that feeds the earth which in turn that energy then becomes a plant or shrub etc at dies the cycle continues on and does not stop simple



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jon shanow
 


Which element is 'life' on the periodic table?



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


Well, you didn't answer what I told you.

Your theory contradicts itself.

You are not comfortable with the idea of an infinite universe, something is needed to surround it, so you have this extra universe (not reality) surrounding our own finite universe. But this extra reality is infinite???

So, we are not talking about a 5th dimension, but one more universe, infinite, with our own finite universe being nothing more than a point in this bigger one.

As I told you, your whole theory recreates exactly the same questions you try to answer, but on a different level.

And were did this infinite universe came from?
What surrounds it? It is infinite, you said?

You do understand that the term infinite (nothing surrounds it) is as mind provoking as saying that the universe is finite and nothing surrounds it.


And why you use only one extra dimension/reality?

I'll change for a little my perspective and I'll say that you are almost correct, with one small mistake: There are 1000 extra dimensions. The 999 of them, including our own are finite and each one surrounds the other, with our reality being the last one. Each reality is nothing more than a point in the reality above it.

The only reality that is infinite is the first one, and from this reality originates all the energy and matter of the other realities.

So, if you die in this reality, you are still alive in the 999th reality. If you die there, you go to the 998th reality and so on......

.......but when you die in the second reality at last you are completely free in the first infinite reality and then you can choose if you want to stay there or try another round.

But the problem is: Where did this first all-containing-infinite reality came from?

Hmmmm. This question seems exactly the same like the one we had in the 1000th reality, on a little planet called Earth.......

Please prove me wrong



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by panther512
 


There is no last or beginning universe or dimension. The cycle is infinite. There is no such thing as 'nothing'.

Edit:

I'm not even reading your whole posts at this point because you haven't given me any evidence to support your claim of the universe existing in nothing and the energy from the big bang coming from no where.

You want answers just like me. I have an open mind and if someone can prove to me beyond speculation their viewpoint of the big bang I will drop my arguement.

I apologize but I find the idea of the universe existing in nothing and 'life' existing for no purpose a stretch to say the least. If this is true then why don't we build a big bomb and just blow this place out of the universe? No one will be happy or sad any more and all of our problems will go away.

Why cry when someone dies? Why go to war? Why save someone's life? Why continue a system that is in itself trivial?

It's a bleak outlook and a terrifying reality if the people that run the world feel this way about life.


[edit on 9/20/2007 by Spoodily]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Spoodily
 


Well, you haven't given any proof about your theory, but I read your posts in their entirety in order to have a better conversation with you.

You think you are the only one with some theory on the origins of our universe?

Why some theories are better than others and recognized by the scientific community as plausible?

Because these theories are works based on scientific evidence, evidence that can be monitored and/or recreated or are the result of scientific calculations.

Why prefer these theories than the theory of guy A who says that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything or guy B who says that there is another reality containing our own or guy C who says that nothing exists and he is the only real consciousness which creates all things surrounding him?

Because with science we have the most concrete start we can have, a start that science itself will correct if in the future it proves to be wrong.

We examine what we have and continue from there. In any other case there would be thousands of theories and pseudo-sciences originating from every person that had a "theory" in his mind, each one believing that he and only he is right.

So, what we have now is the theory of Big-Bang, in which theory space is part of the once compressed universe. Nothing surrounded it and that's the end, or better the beginning.

Now, for the origins of the universe, string and super-string theories come to give an explanation, using from 5 to 11 dimensions of space (not realities).

These dimensions come from mathematical formulas and not from the need to contain something into something else.

These are the most plausible theories.

Because you cannot understand the meaning of "nothing", this is no excuse to add extra realities, dimensions, Gods or Spaghetti monsters.

These are the evidence we have at this time and all the progress we've made so far is exactly because we examined the evidence and based on the evidence came the theories.

You've made up a theory based on nothing. This is no good start....



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily

The frequency of time. Get it? Time is every frequency there is.


Well, no, that doesn't make sense, even at a dimensional analysis stage.

It sounds good though.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily

They are called dimensions because they are not in the same reality. They can occupy the same area but are not of the same universe.


Well, not really. We have three spatial dimensions that are readily perceivable, for example, and all are in this universe.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Dimensions and realities refer to separate things. Don't use them interchangeably.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a Nobel prizewinner in the house!


Originally posted by polomontana
I see that some people here are stuck in a time loop. They don't understand theoretical physics, digital physics or quantum computation. Are we at least up to quantum loop gravity here?

Dear lord. How many physicists in the whole wide world could lay claim to understanding all of that? Is your name Lee Smolin?

Here's a challenge to you, you offensively presumptuous person.

Post your educational qualifications. Prove to us that you actually have had an education in physics. Indeed, prove to us that you actually had an education in anything.

Anyone want to bet me the reply will be something like 'I don't believe in elitist academic qualifications and the lies they teach in schools and universities. I have educated myself more thoroughly than you and people like Tom Bedlam ever will!'?

Some people on this board have actually studied physics, you know. That's a little different from reading a bunch of science popularizations and crank bestsellers and thinking you know what you're talking about. People who've done the work actually know how to tell the difference.

You don't.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
So many fingers, so little grasp...


Originally posted by Spoodily
I am still waiting for a thorough description and explanation of the Big Bang or any variation of the creation of this universe.

While you're waiting, how about dashing off a few lines citing the sources for the statements in your own first and subsequent posts?

Actually, you could start by citing the source for your understanding of the word 'dimension'.


Here's a newsflash, there aren't sources for new science.

That's right, it's transferred directly from the scientists' head to yours, isn't it, while lesser mortals waste their time with Physical Review Letters.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
So many fingers, so little grasp...


Originally posted by Spoodily
I am still waiting for a thorough description and explanation of the Big Bang or any variation of the creation of this universe.

While you're waiting, how about dashing off a few lines citing the sources for the statements in your own first and subsequent posts?

Actually, you could start by citing the source for your understanding of the word 'dimension'.


I'm still waiting. Would you like to add some credibility to the Big Bang Theory? You haven't provided anything to substantiant the claim that we exist in 'nothing'.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by panther512
 


I told you I will make a thread in due time. We will all have a lot of fun with it. I will put my Nobel Prize in one of those spinning necklaces like 50 Cent has. It will be a complete mockery of the religion called science.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join