Does reincarnation occur or is it all just hoax?

@rosborne979,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
So if you've got something more valid to offer then step up.
In exchange for WHAT??
I 'm equally as well off whether your belief system is right or rong.

rosborne979 wrote:

As I thought, you've got nothing. All you're doing is rationalizing anecdotal evidence into something meaningful to you and peppering it with flawed analogies and decrepit arguments, all of which you yourself could probably tear apart if you so chose. But you don't.

The lengths to which people will go to support their delusions is amazing to me. You demonstrate it with every paragraph you write. You have abandoned your own logic and intellect in favor of a desperate emotional desire to have the evidence somehow support your delusion, which it doesn't.

If this weren't, to varying degrees, the norm for human behavior it would be shocking. Unfortunately, it's all too common.

I dont feel a need to debunk what u said meticulously seriatim,
tho I dont mind answering questions, if I can.
I 've expressed what I wanted to say, addressing the topic.
Years before the first time that I left my human body,
I liked hearing of the experiences of others who 'd had it happen.

As a point of curiosity, will u tell us
whether u 'd find it saddening,
if u knew that your conscious life wud endure
in good health, despite your human body molting off ?

Do u see that potential as being something bad ?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Actually...the force at work here is that you are willing to present blind guesses...as reasonable assumptions.

I am not.
Please expound on your definition between guess and assumption

Did you actually mean to ask for me to expound on my definition between "guess" and "reasonable assumption?"

Or are you trying to cloud the issue a bit because you see you are digging the hole deeper with each post?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-IS-afterlife-claims-scientist.html

It's hard to believe people like that are considered to be scientists given that they posit theories which have no relationship to scientific methodology. His entire argument revolves around the idea that anything in quantum theory which we don't understand can be twisted into an analogy for life after death.

What's the point of debate if you can dismiss a researcher with a trite paragraph and then based on your apparent kudos among some here at a2k it is accepted? You should at least give one good reason that debunks his theory before he is ignored.

He is not saying it proves life after death but that because every action that can happen is happening simultaneously in the multiverse... death is an illusion that one possible outcome has allowed, amongst an infinite number of possible outcomes, all happening elsewhere.

It explains the paradox of the double-slit experiment and has led to science using mathematics and logic to come up with the theory of the multiverse. It is leading-edge science and not some individual crackpot... that can be dismissed with your post of no substance.

Nothing personal... but really, come up with a better reason than the one you've given...

1 Reply

@igm,

That's a fair challenge. Let me be more specific, I consider his theory of Biocentrism to be pseudoscientific and not credible or testable following normal scientific methodology. I also consider his interpretation of the double-slit experiment to be incorrect in its implications, so I don't find his use of it as corroborative.

I would also caveat my opinions above by recognizing that I have not read any of his theories directly, but have only read what is in the article (which may not accurately represent his theories).

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~tgehrels/papers-2011-04/ApJ-III.pdf

http://listverse.com/2013/02/22/10-mind-bending-implications-of-the-many-worlds-theory/

The fact of our immortality in a Multiverse can be illustrated in various ways. For one thing, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy (such as the electrical charges generated by your brain, or the heat your body produces) cannot be created or destroyed, but simply changes form—implying that the energy that powers your body must go somewhere when it leaves, and that consciousness cannot be destroyed, but is infinite. For another, consider the thought experiment known as Quantum Immortality.
In this experiment (preceded by “thought” for a reason; for crying out loud, don’t try this), an experimenter sits in front of a device which is programmed, with 50/50 probability, to either discharge a device which kills the experimenter, or produce a click (in which case, of course, the experimenter survives). In the second case, the experimenter and all observers experience the same outcome- a click, and nothing else. But in the first—since (assuming MWI is correct) it is not possible for the experimenter to experience termination of consciousness (because consciousness is infinite)—while any observers will see the experimenter killed, the experimenter himself will experience the first outcome, the harmless click, on another world-line. Said experimenter can never experience a different outcome, and thus—no matter how unlikely it becomes after repeated attempts—will always survive the experiment, from his point of view.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

You don't seriously think I don't know about that already do you? The Multiverse is not all he's claiming. He's inferring a logical construct derived from Multiverse which I find unsupportable. And he's using vague analogies about Double Slit experiments to prop up his speculation. I don't buy it.

0 Replies

@igm,

Amended my last post... ros you might want to reread it.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Amended my last post.

I saw.

I should also add that when it comes to scientific theories and even philosophy I tend to be very pragmatic. I don't like theories which look good on paper but have no relationship to our functional existence.

Sure there could be a Multiverse with infinite possibilities all happening at once, and within such a superset of universes all of us could be winning the lottery and simultaneously getting squished by meteorites during every moment of our infinite existence's. But it doesn't interest me because our functional reality is not the Multiverse, it's our individual Universe. Talking about the Multiverse as though it was the proper foundation for our reality is no different than talking about magic.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

igm wrote:
Amended my last post.

I saw.

I should also add that when it comes to scientific theories and even philosophy I tend to be very pragmatic. I don't like theories which look good on paper but have no relationship to our functional existence.

Sure there could be a Multiverse with infinite possibilities all happening at once, and within such a superset of universes all of us could be winning the lottery and simultaneously getting squished by meteorites during every moment of our infinite existence's. But it doesn't interest me because our functional reality is not the Multiverse, it's our individual Universe. Talking about the Multiverse as though it was the proper foundation for our reality is no different than talking about magic.

Is the double-slit experiment magic? Also, those that have done the math and the science in this area have my attention... those who call it magic without giving one example of how it doesn't stack up doesn't get my vote. I'm sure you'll agree that is the pragmatic approach. I'm open to you furnishing a reason why the multiverse explanation doesn't stack up... you'll have all of our attention if you can.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Is the double-slit experiment magic?

Of course not. But that doesn't mean his interpretation/analogy of what is happening supports his theory (because nobody actually knows what is causing the double-slit results).

igm wrote:

I'm open to you furnishing a reason why the multiverse explanation doesn't stack up... you'll have all of our attention if you can.

There are a lot of people who don't feel that Multiverse theory is valid science. I just happen to be one of them. And therefor I don't feel that even deeper conjecture regarding Biocentrism is valid either.

The same link you provided to the Wiki on Multiverse contains a section on criticism. There are a number of them which I agree with. Here's a little clip from that section:

Wiki wrote:

In his 2003 NY Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :

Paul Davies wrote:
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

1 Reply

Yeah, but IGM wants to believe in this ****, while pretending that it's not religious superstition.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Yeah, but IGM wants to believe in this ****, while pretending that it's not religious superstition.

Could be. I don't know. To be honest I haven't even concerned myself with his motivations. I'm just trying to justify my previous post regarding that article related to Biocentrism in which some well-meaning (Probably) and highly-credentialed (I assume) scientist goes way out on a flimsy limb and claims that he can logically deduce that death doesn't exist because of one layer of scientific woowoo on top of another Smile

0 Replies

Ah . . . scientific woo-woo . . . i like that . . . do you mind if i use it?

I've gone around and around with IGM before, as he consistently tries to portray his Buddhist belief set as logical and superior to other religious superstitions. I've asked him about karma and reincarnation, but he waffles and quibbles and never really gives a straight answer. I suspect that's because he's intelligent enough to realize that he's amassed a belief set which cannot be justified by any plausible woo-woo, so he won't come to the point.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Ah . . . scientific woo-woo . . . i like that . . . do you mind if i use it?

Feel free to use it, but be aware that I already stole (borrowed) it from a Sam Harris video clip which you can see here:

0 Replies

Sam gets on my nerves after a while, but he can be very entertaining.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Thanks, that I find a more satisfying response to the poster's link, than your first reply, which was accepted on face value by that poster, when it had no substance.

It has nothing to do with supporting Buddhism only the ill informed would believe that.

Here is some very leading-edge science (don't dismiss it because you don't understand it):

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~tgehrels/papers-2011-04/ApJ-III.pdf

RESULTS FROM THE CHANDRA MULTIVERSE.
III. THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY

TOM GEHRELS

Department of Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Received 2011 April

ABSTRACT

This paper solves the dark-matter and dark-energy problem by taking into account that our
universe is not alone, but is a member of a specific multiverse. Paper I has Planck’s and
Chandrasekhar’s equations, and Paper II describes the Chandra multiverse. In this paper, protons,
neutrons etc. are discussed first because there already are theoretical studies of them as dark matter.
Dark energy has been used to accelerate the expansion of our universe; the description of the
beginning of our universe is therefore repeated here from Paper II, and repeated again for dark
matter instead of old protons etc., and for dark energy instead of old photons, supplied to the
multiverse by old universes. The results are identical, and the conclusion is therefore that dark
matter is old protons etc. and that dark energy is the acceleration energy of photons, old or regular
photons. They depend on each other: the one receives, the other brings the kinetic energy of the
photon acceleration. The model is confirmed thrice: 1. It is based on at least 30 observations. 2. The
limit of Karl Schwarzschild, which does not allow the Big Bang, does allow this model. 3. The old
photons and protons (dark energy and dark matter) from decaying universes have to be used
because they are the supply for new universes; they would choke the system if they would not be reused,
we would not be here.

1 Reply

I liked "spooky physics," too. I'm sure IGM wants to work up some spooky physics to underpin his superstitions.

0 Replies

I apologize for introducing that article. Laughing

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

As a point of curiosity, will u tell us
whether u 'd find it saddening,
if u knew that your conscious life wud endure
in good health, despite your human body molting off ?

You've made a graceful departure from our previous track, so I'll try to follow suit.

It doesn't bother me when people express their beliefs. If you had done just that I might have tried to explore your viewpoint with you. What bothers me is when people express a belief and then try to claim that it is supported by scientific evidence (and is something more than a belief) when it actually isn't.

My interest isn't in destroying your beliefs, it's in protecting the veracity of science and protecting the deep value of what scientific evidence provides us. When people make claims about science which are indefensible they are spreading disinformation and undermining humanity's best tool for seeing the world clearly. And that's worth defending.

And to answer your question above, no, I do not find it saddening to think that conscious life might endure despite the disassociation of physical structure. Why would I? I would find it surprising given how illogical it is, but if it comes to pass I will accept the illogic and just be curious.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Thanks, that I find a more satisfying response to the poster's link, than your first reply, which was accepted on face value by that poster, when it had no substance.

Fair enough. Given my time limits at that moment, I intended it to carry only the substance of my opinion. But I understand if that's not enough for you.

0 Replies

Does reincarnation occur or is it all just hoax?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know