Physics of the Afterlife

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL

Okay.

Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]

The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]

Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.

42

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Think tank fish is looking like another wonder boy who knows all about the afterlife and how the universe functions. But he can’t quite figure out how to use the quote function. Ho hum…just another day on T Nation.[/quote]

Lol. I think its worked this time. I was trying to make it shorter.
I know nothing of the afterlife. Thats the point. No one does.[/quote]

Maybe in England they’ve lost their way, I’ve read polls. But here in the US we (as a majority) still believe.

But you could try peddling your crap on an english web site. I’m sure you’d get lots of accolades for your meaningless tripe.

Give it a shot…

43

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL

Okay.

Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]

The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]

Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.
[/quote]

I know you believe that only one thing can be uncaused, but I disagree…which you also know. Apparently Stephen Hawking believes the law of gravity is uncaused.

44

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Think tank fish is looking like another wonder boy who knows all about the afterlife and how the universe functions. But he can’t quite figure out how to use the quote function. Ho hum…just another day on T Nation.[/quote]

Lol. I think its worked this time. I was trying to make it shorter.
I know nothing of the afterlife. Thats the point. No one does.[/quote]

Maybe in England they’ve lost their way, I’ve read polls. But here in the US we (as a majority) still believe.

But you could try peddling your crap on an english web site. I’m sure you’d get lots of accolades for your meaningless tripe.

Give it a shot…[/quote]

Woah! I thought christianity taught tolerance. I’m not saying your views are wrong I’m simply saying we cannot “know”. But for the religious types I thought that’s where your faith came in.

Also I didn’t realise T-Nation was an ‘american only’ site. But this thread was started by an englishman (who actually buys Biotest supplements) so if you dont like it feel free to stick to the american only posts.

45

How can anything be “uncaused”?

46

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL

Okay.

Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]

The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]

Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.
[/quote]

I know you believe that only one thing can be uncaused, but I disagree…which you also know. Apparently Stephen Hawking believes the law of gravity is uncaused.[/quote]

The argument necessitates. Please state how more than one thing can be an uncaused-causer, because there are no arguments, theories or otherwise that make the assertion of multiple uncaused entities. You know contingency necessitates that there can only be one uncaused-cause. There is zero evidence for multiples. It’s not logically possible. It’s not a ‘belief’ it’s what the argument necessitates. Your damned stubborn to hold on these ideas that have no basis or evidence what-so-ever.

47

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

Woah! I thought christianity taught tolerance.[/quote]

Where does it say the word “tolerance” in the Christian Bible. You don’t even know enough about Christianity to question it. Go study the book junior.

No, actually it’s not. In fact, as of late it’s become a magnet for 20 something’s from all over the world. You should stay I’m the one who should leave.

Bye.

48

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How can anything be “uncaused”?[/quote]

Now you are starting to understand…

49

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL

Okay.

Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]

The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]

Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.
[/quote]

I know you believe that only one thing can be uncaused, but I disagree…which you also know. Apparently Stephen Hawking believes the law of gravity is uncaused.[/quote]

He never made any assertion to that, only that gravity was the start of this universe. He did not bother to state whether gravity is caused or not. Especially since nobody, not even Hawking knows what gravity actually is. What we do know it that gravity is caused…It’s caused by mass…I thought everybody knew that.

Like I said a million times before, this universe that we are aware of could be infinite, could be a series of reciprocating accordion universes, could be one of many multiverses, etc. None, of it, not one part of that removes the problem of contingency.
Everything that exists is contingent in someway on other things, this regression continues until you hit a point where you cannot regress beyond what must necessarily exist. It’s really that simple.

50

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Think tank fish is looking like another wonder boy who knows all about the afterlife and how the universe functions. But he can’t quite figure out how to use the quote function. Ho hum…just another day on T Nation.[/quote]

Lol. I think its worked this time. I was trying to make it shorter.
I know nothing of the afterlife. Thats the point. No one does.[/quote]

Maybe in England they’ve lost their way, I’ve read polls. But here in the US we (as a majority) still believe.

But you could try peddling your crap on an english web site. I’m sure you’d get lots of accolades for your meaningless tripe.

Give it a shot…[/quote]

Woah! I thought christianity taught tolerance. I’m not saying your views are wrong I’m simply saying we cannot “know”. But for the religious types I thought that’s where your faith came in.

Also I didn’t realise T-Nation was an ‘american only’ site. But this thread was started by an englishman (who actually buys Biotest supplements) so if you dont like it feel free to stick to the american only posts.[/quote]

The sooner you learn to ignore Zeb, the easier it becomes to retain your sanity on PWI.

51

Pat,

Why is it that, because laws of physics continue to exist after a man dies, it means that an afterlife exists?

What evidence do you have that suggests that consciousness survives corporal death?

52

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

Woah! I thought christianity taught tolerance.[/quote]

Where does it say the word “tolerance” in the Christian Bible. You don’t even know enough about Christianity to question it. Go study the book junior.

No, actually it’s not. In fact, as of late it’s become a magnet for 20 something’s from all over the world. You should stay I’m the one who should leave.

Bye.

[/quote]

ZEB, so Jesus had no tolerance? It’s funny how many Christians are the furthest from being Christ-like. You set a bad example.

53

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Think tank fish is looking like another wonder boy who knows all about the afterlife and how the universe functions. But he can’t quite figure out how to use the quote function. Ho hum…just another day on T Nation.[/quote]

Lol. I think its worked this time. I was trying to make it shorter.
I know nothing of the afterlife. Thats the point. No one does.[/quote]

Now that is true, nobody knows what lies beyond death. I believe in an afterlife, but I can’t know it. But I can know that if there is one, certain truths can and do permeate.

54

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat,

Why is it that, because laws of physics continue to exist after a man dies, it means that an afterlife exists?

What evidence do you have that suggests that consciousness survives corporal death?[/quote]

I never said it does. But if it does, metaphysical truths continue to exist and be true, despite one’s relation to it before or after death.

55

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat,

Why is it that, because laws of physics continue to exist after a man dies, it means that an afterlife exists?

What evidence do you have that suggests that consciousness survives corporal death?[/quote]

I never said it does. But if it does, metaphysical truths continue to exist and be true, despite one’s relation to it before or after death.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying.

56

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I think it depends on whether you view death as leaving this universe and existing in an entirely different universe governed by different rules or existing within this universe in a completely different physical state.

Either way the physics of how you could perceive the world without eyes to see or ears to hear etc…is beyond me.[/quote]

I shortened it because it was gettin’ messy.
It doesn’t matter, something that is an absolute truth is always true under any circumstance, perception, alternate universe, etc. If a truth were different in ‘another universe’ it would have to be different here too.

57

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL

Okay.

Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]

The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]

Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.
[/quote]

I know you believe that only one thing can be uncaused, but I disagree…which you also know. Apparently Stephen Hawking believes the law of gravity is uncaused.[/quote]

The argument necessitates. Please state how more than one thing can be an uncaused-causer, because there are no arguments, theories or otherwise that make the assertion of multiple uncaused entities. You know contingency necessitates that there can only be one uncaused-cause. There is zero evidence for multiples. It’s not logically possible. It’s not a ‘belief’ it’s what the argument necessitates. Your damned stubborn to hold on these ideas that have no basis or evidence what-so-ever.
[/quote]

It’s not stubbornness, my friend. It’s an honest difference of opinion. I simply disagree with your logic.

Metaphysical objects do not need a cause in order to exist. They can exist outside of time, outside of space, and outside of the causal chain.

Metaphysics is rife with speculation about causality, none of it ultimately provable.

I know you believe the cosmological argument is the only theory that makes sense, but I and (more importantly) many far more qualified philosophers than me disagree it is the only possibility.

58

[quote]ephrem wrote:

The sooner you learn to ignore Zeb, the easier it becomes to retain your sanity on PWI.
[/quote]

Wow, that was shocking. We’ve disagreed over just about every major issue over the past several years. And now you’re telling people to ignore me. Well now who’d a ever thought.

You’re a lot like a pile of shit, only you’re transparent.

59

Don’t put anyone on ignore, take a pause from PWI instead. That’s much healthier.

60

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL

Okay.

Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]

The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]

Moreover, those laws may well be uncaused ;)[/quote]
Uh, no. That would be circular. Then would then have to exist because they exist… There can only be one uncaused thing, it is impossible to have more. Metaphysical doesn’t mean uncaused, it just means ‘things after the physics’…technically.
[/quote]

I know you believe that only one thing can be uncaused, but I disagree…which you also know. Apparently Stephen Hawking believes the law of gravity is uncaused.[/quote]

The argument necessitates. Please state how more than one thing can be an uncaused-causer, because there are no arguments, theories or otherwise that make the assertion of multiple uncaused entities. You know contingency necessitates that there can only be one uncaused-cause. There is zero evidence for multiples. It’s not logically possible. It’s not a ‘belief’ it’s what the argument necessitates. Your damned stubborn to hold on these ideas that have no basis or evidence what-so-ever.
[/quote]

It’s not stubbornness, my friend. It’s an honest difference of opinion. I simply disagree with your logic.
[/quote]
With out a decent counter argument, it’s not about a difference of opinion, it’s simply a logic fail.

No, the difference between metaphysical and physical is that the metaphysical is not subject to space and time, that’s it. The rest of the rules still apply. There are different levels, textures and qualities of metaphysical existence. It’s a rich and deep existence, it simply lacks the ability to be detected via the senses. They are very much caused and have a reason for existence. There is no metaphysical construct that exists for no reason.

Whoa!! You need to do some research dood. Metaphysical truths are even more real and accurate than their physical counter parts…I can prove 2+2=4 is always true, you cannot prove anything physical exists with out any doubt. If anything metaphysical reality is MORE real.

[quote]
I know you believe the cosmological argument is the only theory that makes sense, but I and (more importantly) many far more qualified philosophers than me disagree it is the only possibility.[/quote]

Again you go with the fallacy of ‘Appeal to authority’. Just because a smart person thinks is wrong doesn’t mean it is. It’s what you can prove and cosmology from contingency has never been proven wrong, ever, PERIOD.
Nothing can’t make something. It’s illogical to think so. It’s illogical in FACT. There is no way around it. Nothing doesn’t exist therefore it cannot ‘do’ anything. That is a flat truth, not an opinion or feeling, a truth.