But you can't bring up what you read? I don't see the need for this bizarre secrecy?
There's no secrecy just look it up for yourself. There have been many experiments delving into whether the laws of physics changed over time.
For me there's no evidence that laws are immutable or even apply across the universe. There's not even evidence that laws are something external imposing themselves and a good argument why that's not logically possible.
You can believe whatever you want, but the logical argument has no relevance to physics or in other words a logical argument will never find the truth.
So NDEs are true, but cause no revision into our known understanding of physics? I don't see how that makes sense.
That's what folk believe. Since post mortem consciousness is already known by some to be indicative it doesn't appear to have change the laws of physics at least to the precision current experimentation allows.
There's a difference between random speculation and reasoned argument. No one has even proven there are external laws of physics, just regularities, and the boundary of which we know they apply is finite. Even that assumes a certain model of the universe is true.
In this question it can only be argued using what is known. Let me show you what random speculation looks like.
I don't know. If this reality is a projection that would imply the data is stored elsewhere in some other form. Or the matter of the universe itself could be considered the information storage if it is possible to move around in time. In other words everything that has happened is still accessible because it still exists. Information storage is meaning in-formed into symbol which has a relatively low rate of change. So the tree outside could be considered to be the experience of a tree in-formed into matter. Light hits the tree and is decoded by the eye into electrical signals and these are decoded into a visual experience of the tree, like light hitting a CD and decoding into electrical signals and back to light signals. The tree changes slowly so that enables the assignment of identity to it and identity is a necessary part of memory.
Now for reasoned argument
The Degenerate Age
After the Stelliferous age, the universe is very different, for two reasons. First, stars are no longer shining. Second, galaxies which are not gravitationally bound to each other have been carried far away by the expansion of the universe. After several passes between our Milky Way and Andromeda, the two galaxies will merge. After trillions of years, all the galaxies in our Local Group will have coalesced into one big object. But all the other galaxies in the universe will have continued to move farther and farther away: by 10^(14) years in the future, even our nearest unbound neighbors will be more than one million Megaparsecs away from us.
The dominant forms of matter are now mostly dead stars, in several forms:
- brown dwarfs: objects not massive enough to form stars (about the size of Jupiter)
- white dwarfs: the dense, cooling remains of low-mass stars (about the size of the Earth)
- neutron stars: the very dense remains of high-mass stars which ran out of fuel and suffered core-collapse (about the size of New York City)
- black holes: the very very dense remains of high-mass stars whose cores were more than about three solar masses at the time of core collapse (about the size of Rochester)
The atoms in all these objects are unlike those in ordinary matter, due to their high density. Physicists call this sort of material
degenerate, and that term gives its name to this Age.
Since these objects are not burning any fuel, they do not radiate light. The Degenerate Age is dark.
Over the course of this Age, gravity causes two competing effects.
Chance encounters between stellar remnants in our merged "Local Galaxy" cause some of the stars to fly off into intergalactic space, and others to fall deeper into the gravitational well of the "Local Galaxy".
If a remnant happens to pass close to a black hole, it may be torn apart. The resulting material may form an accretion disk around the black hole, spiralling inwards and emitting radiation as it goes.
.
Except there are experiments suggesting quantum particles move backwards and forwards in time. Also no one can definitively answer what the phrase "laws of physics" actually means or why the "laws" stay the same or whether they apply to the rest of the universe.
I don't think this is relevant.
Nobody knows. Heck I don't even know if NDEs are actually a depiction of the afterlife, I'm just trying to understand why one would assume they are real but not revise physics?
I'm hoping you'll eventualy provide a well-reasoned argument for this.
If you assume NDEs show real events of post-mortem survival there are reports of people controlling space-time, guessing at least one NDE out there has told people the soul is eternal directly or indirectly?
I guess you could try to say that part of the NDE reports is false, that those people are deceived, but it's a bit odd to insist at the outset NDEs are true but everything that renders your question as meaningless or at least a non-concern gets excluded....
Observations just show results of experiments. You're extrapolating and pretending you have facts about what will happen trillions of years from.
It is interesting that your beliefs are "logical extrapolations" but anyone else - including physicists who don't share your faith - are just stating mere "opinions". ;)
And I'll ask again - What's energy?
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28″—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas."
-Feynman on Energy
Also, while we're at it what's entropy? Do you think the concept of entropy in information science has any relevance?
Except "matter" is now some kind of quantum foam that doesn't even have a spatio-temporal location.
As Bitbol notes materialism is a stance that outruns empiricism.
Additionally you're assuming laws of physics don't change and their imposition is due to some external pressure.
Or that there's matter at all. Or that this "stuff" has no consciousness or conscious potential. And so on...
Once you remove all these assumptions you can have an ontologically neutral science.[/QUOTE]
But you can't bring up what you read? I don't see the need for this bizarre secrecy?
For me there's no evidence that laws are immutable or even apply across the universe. There's not even evidence that laws are something external imposing themselves and a good argument why that's not logically possible.
All we have are a list of experiments, some of which were extrapolated into technologies a small amount of which we know works beyond the edge of the solar system.
So NDEs are true, but cause no revision into our known understanding of physics? I don't see how that makes sense.
There's a difference between random speculation and reasoned argument. No one has even proven there are external laws of physics, just regularities, and the boundary of which we know they apply is finite. Even that assumes a certain model of the universe is true.
For example if the Electric Universe is true heat death isn't even on the table.
Heck, no one can even explain why the world at the macro level isn't as bizarre as the quantum level.
Except there are experiments suggesting quantum particles move backwards and forwards in time. Also no one can definitively answer what the phrase "laws of physics" actually means or why the "laws" stay the same or whether they apply to the rest of the universe.
Nor have you managed to address the issues physics has with the present moment. If you need more detail
Smolin & Unger's book is actually free, or you can watch Tallis' presentation:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/free-book-singular-universe-reality-of-time.3090/
No one has an explanation for causation either, which is how people extrapolated the supposed universal laws from isolated observations.
Nobody knows. Heck I don't even know if ND
But you can't bring up what you read? I don't see the need for this bizarre secrecy?
There's no secrecy just look it up for yourself. there have been many experiments delving into whether the laws of ohysics changed over time.
{quote]For me there's no evidence that laws are immutable or even apply across the universe. There's not even evidence that laws are something external imposing themselves and a good argument why that's not logically possible.
You can believe whatever you want, but the logical argument has no relevance to physics or in other words a logical argument will never find the truth.
So NDEs are true, but cause no revision into our known understanding of physics? I don't see how that makes sense.
That's what folk believe on this forum. Since post mortem consciousness is already known by some to be present it doesn't appear to have change the laws of physics at least to the precision current experimentation allows.
There's a difference between random speculation and reasoned argument. No one has even proven there are external laws of physics, just regularities, and the boundary of which we know they apply is finite. Even that assumes a certain model of the universe is true.
The laws aren't external. In this question it can only be argued using what is known. Let me show you what random speculation looks like.
I don't know. If this reality is a projection that would imply the data is stored elsewhere in some other form. Or the matter of the universe itself could be considered the information storage if it is possible to move around in time. In other words everything that has happened is still accessible because it still exists. Information storage is meaning in-formed into symbol which has a relatively low rate of change. So the tree outside could be considered to be the experience of a tree in-formed into matter. Light hits the tree and is decoded by the eye into electrica
But you can't bring up what you read? I don't see the need for this bizarre secrecy?
There's no secrecy just look it up for yourself. there have been many experiments delving into whether the laws of ohysics changed over time.
{quote]For me there's no evidence that laws are immutable or even apply across the universe. There's not even evidence that laws are something external imposing themselves and a good argument why that's not logically possible.
You can believe whatever you want, but the logical argument has no relevance to physics or in other words a logical argument will never find the truth.
So NDEs are true, but cause no revision into our known understanding of physics? I don't see how that makes sense.
That's what folk believe. but since post mortem consciousness is already known by some to be indicative it doesn't appear to have change the laws of physics at least to the precision current experimentation allows.
There's a difference between random speculation and reasoned argument. No one has even proven there are external laws of physics, just regularities, and the boundary of which we know they apply is finite. Even that assumes a certain model of the universe is true.
In this question it can only be argued using what is known. let me show you what random speculation looks like.
I don't know. If this reality is a projection that would imply the data is stored elsewhere in some other form. Or the matter of the universe itself could be considered the information storage if it is possible to move around in time. In other words everything that has happened is still accessible because it still exists. Information storage is meaning in-formed into symbol which has a relatively low rate of change. So the tree outside could be considered to be the experience of a tree in-formed into matter. Light hits the tree and is decoded by the eye into electrical signals and these are decoded into a visual experience of the tree, like light hitting a CD and decoding into electrical signals and back to light signals. The tree changes slowly so that enables the assignment of identity to it and identity is a necessary part of memory.
Now for reasoned argument
The Degenerate Age
After the Stelliferous age, the universe is very different, for two reasons. First, stars are no longer shining. Second, galaxies which are not gravitationally bound to each other have been carried far away by the expansion of the universe. After several passes between our Milky Way and Andromeda, the two galaxies will merge. After trillions of years, all the galaxies in our Local Group will have coalesced into one big object. But all the other galaxies in the universe will have continued to move farther and farther away: by 10^(14) years in the future, even our nearest unbound neighbors will be more than one million Megaparsecs away from us.
The dominant forms of matter are now mostly dead stars, in several forms:
brown dwarfs: objects not massive enough to form stars (about the size of Jupiter)
white dwarfs: the dense, cooling remains of low-mass stars (about the size of the Earth)
neutron stars: the very dense remains of high-mass stars which ran out of fuel and suffered core-collapse (about the size of New York City)
black holes: the very very dense remains of high-mass stars whose cores were more than about three solar masses at the time of core collapse (about the size of Rochester)
The atoms in all these objects are unlike those in ordinary matter, due to their high density. Physicists call this sort of material degenerate, and that term gives its name to this Age.
Since these objects are not burning any fuel, they do not radiate light. The Degenerate Age is dark.
Over the course of this Age, gravity causes two competing effects.
Chance encounters between stellar remnants in our merged "Local Galaxy" cause some of the stars to fly off into intergalactic space, and others to fall deeper into the gravitational well of the "Local Galaxy".
If a remnant happens to pass close to a black hole, it may be torn apart. The resulting material may form an accretion disk around the black hole, spiralling inwards and emitting radiation as it goes.
.
Except there are experiments suggesting quantum particles move backwards and forwards in time. Also no one can definitively answer what the phrase "laws of physics" actually means or why the "laws" stay the same or whether they apply to the rest of the universe.
I don't think this is relevant.
Nobody knows. Heck I don't even know if NDEs are actually a depiction of the afterlife, I'm just trying to understand why one would assume they are real but not revise physics?
I'm hoping you'll eventualy provide a well-reasoned argument for this.
If you assume NDEs show real events of post-mortem survival there are reports of people controlling space-time, guessing at least one NDE out there has told people the soul is eternal directly or indirectly?
I guess you could try to say that part of the NDE reports is false, that those people are deceived, but it's a bit odd to insist at the outset NDEs are true but everything that renders your question as meaningless or at least a non-concern gets excluded....
Observations just show results of experiments. You're extrapolating and pretending you have facts about what will happen trillions of years from.
It is interesting that your beliefs are "logical extrapolations" but anyone else - including physicists who don't share your faith - are just stating mere "opinions". ;)
And I'll ask again - What's energy?
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28″—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas."
-Feynman on Energy
Also, while we're at it what's entropy? Do you think the concept of entropy in information science has any relevance?
Except "matter" is now some kind of quantum foam that doesn't even have a spatio-temporal location. As Bitbol notes materialism is a stance that outruns empiricism.
Additionally you're assuming laws of physics don't change and their imposition is due to some external pressure.
Or that there's matter at all. Or that this "stuff" has no consciousness or conscious potential. And so on...
Once you remove all these assumptions you can have an ontologically neutral science.[/QUOTE]
But you can't bring up what you read? I don't see the need for this bizarre secrecy?
For me there's no evidence that laws are immutable or even apply across the universe. There's not even evidence that laws are something external imposing themselves and a good argument why that's not logically possible.
All we have are a list of experiments, some of which were extrapolated into technologies a small amount of which we know works beyond the edge of the solar system.
So NDEs are true, but cause no revision into our known understanding of physics? I don't see how that makes sense.
There's a difference between random speculation and reasoned argument. No one has even proven there are external laws of physics, just regularities, and the boundary of which we know they apply is finite. Even that assumes a certain model of the universe is true.
For example if the Electric Universe is true heat death isn't even on the table.
Heck, no one can even explain why the world at the macro level isn't as bizarre as the quantum level.
Except there are experiments suggesting quantum particles move backwards and forwards in time. Also no one can definitively answer what the phrase "laws of physics" actually means or why the "laws" stay the same or whether they apply to the rest of the universe.
Nor have you managed to address the issues physics has with the present moment. If you need more detail Smolin & Unger's book is actually free, or you can watch Tallis' presentation:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/free-book-singular-universe-reality-of-time.3090/
No one has an explanation for causation either, which is how people extrapolated the supposed universal laws from isolated observations.
Nobody knows. Heck I don't even know if NDEs are actually a depiction of the afterlife, I'm just trying to understand why one would assume they are real but not revise physics?
I'm hoping you'll eventualy provide a well-reasoned argument for this.
If you assume NDEs show real events of post-mortem survival there are reports of people controlling space-time, guessing at least one NDE out there has told people the soul is eternal directly or indirectly?
I guess you could try to say that part of the NDE reports is false, that those people are deceived, but it's a bit odd to insist at the outset NDEs are true but everything that renders your question as meaningless or at least a non-concern gets excluded....
Observations just show results of experiments. You're extrapolating and pretending you have facts about what will happen trillions of years from.
It is interesting that your beliefs are "logical extrapolations" but anyone else - including physicists who don't share your faith - are just stating mere "opinions". ;)
And I'll ask again - What's energy?
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28″—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas."
-Feynman on Energy
Also, while we're at it what's entropy? Do you think the concept of entropy in information science has any relevance?
Except "matter" is now some kind of quantum foam that doesn't even have a spatio-temporal location. As Bitbol notes materialism is a stance that outruns empiricism.
Additionally you're assuming laws of physics don't change and their imposition is due to some external pressure.
Or that there's matter at all. Or that this "stuff" has no consciousness or conscious potential. And so on...
Once you remove all these assumptions you can have an ontologically neutral science.
l signals and these are decoded into a visual experience of the tree, like light hitting a CD and decoding into electrical signals and back to light signals. The tree changes slowly so that enables the assignment of identity to it and identity is a necessary part of memory.[/quote]
Now for reasoned argument
The Degenerate Age
After the Stelliferous age, the universe is very different, for two reasons. First, stars are no longer shining. Second, galaxies which are not gravitationally bound to each other have been carried far away by the expansion of the universe. After several passes between our Milky Way and Andromeda, the two galaxies will merge. After trillions of years, all the galaxies in our Local Group will have coalesced into one big object. But all the other galaxies in the universe will have continued to move farther and farther away: by 10^(14) years in the future, even our nearest unbound neighbors will be more than one million Megaparsecs away from us.
The dominant forms of matter are now mostly dead stars, in several forms:
brown dwarfs: objects not massive enough to form stars (about the size of Jupiter)
white dwarfs: the dense, cooling remains of low-mass stars (about the size of the Earth)
neutron stars: the very dense remains of high-mass stars which ran out of fuel and suffered core-collapse (about the size of New York City)
black holes: the very very dense remains of high-mass stars whose cores were more than about three solar masses at the time of core collapse (about the size of Rochester)
The atoms in all these objects are unlike those in ordinary matter, due to their high density. Physicists call this sort of material degenerate, and that term gives its name to this Age.
Since these objects are not burning any fuel, they do not radiate light. The Degenerate Age is dark.
Over the course of this Age, gravity causes two competing effects.
Chance encounters between stellar remnants in our merged "Local Galaxy" cause some of the stars to fly off into intergalactic space, and others to fall deeper into the gravitational well of the "Local Galaxy".
If a remnant happens to pass close to a black hole, it may be torn apart. The resulting material may form an accretion disk around the black hole, spiralling inwards and emitting radiation as it goes.
See the difference?
Except there are experiments suggesting quantum particles move backwards and forwards in time. Also no one can definitively answer what the phrase "laws of physics" actually means or why the "laws" stay the same or whether they apply to the rest of the universe.
I checked and to date there are no experiemnts that have actually used substomic particles demonstrating particles moving backwards in time. Particles are allowed to time travel there are no laws that prevent them from doing that. But we can look back in time and actually see what the universe looked like long ago. We can even and have performed experiments to see if any of these laws have change and we see no indications these laws have changed to the precision we can measure. The bold is relevant.
Nobody knows. Heck I don't even know if NDEs are actually a depiction of the afterlife,
Many on this forum and elsewhere do indeed beleive they are proof of an afterlife.
I'm just trying to understand why one would assume they are real but not revise physics?
A rather presumptous statement. You are real and yet do not change the laws of physics nor the billions of other individual alone or collectively nor your indivual consciousness while alive or the collective consciousness of billions of others. So why should your singular consciousness after death change those laws? If anything it should be consciuosness that follows those laws like everything else does.
I'm hoping you'll eventualy provide a well-reasoned argument for this.
If you assume NDEs show real events of post-mortem survival there are reports of people controlling space-time, guessing at least one NDE out there has told people the soul is eternal directly or indirectly?
Citation?
I guess you could try to say that part of the NDE reports is false, that those people are deceived, but it's a bit odd to insist at the outset NDEs are true but everything that renders your question as meaningless or at least a non-concern gets excluded....
What I'm asking is if members have thought about how long consciousness last post mortem?
Observations just show results of experiments.
That's what science is observation and experimentation.
You're extrapolating and pretending you have facts about what will happen trillions of years from.
Yes, it is extrapolating, but even if you don't go all the way to the end there's still an unimaginably large span of time that needs to be considered.
It is interesting that your beliefs are "logical extrapolations" but anyone else - including physicists who don't share your faith - are just stating mere "opinions". ;)
you certainly have misunderstood this. In the words of Richard Feynman-
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
I don't think I have to translate what this means.
And I'll ask again - What's energy?
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28?—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas."
-Feynman on Energy
Also, while we're at it what's entropy? Do you think the concept of entropy in information science has any relevance
Except "matter" is now some kind of quantum foam that doesn't even have a spatio-temporal location. As Bitbol notes materialism is a stance that outruns empiricism.
Additionally you're assuming laws of physics don't change and their imposition is due to some external pressure.
Or that there's matter at all. Or that this "stuff" has no consciousness or conscious potential. And so on...
Once you remove all these assumptions you can have an ontologically neutral science.
All of the above is irrelavant because it goes well beyond the scope of the question originally asked and it because was never a question of science but of belief and if knowing this universe is going to be around for a very long time and even possibly die how would that modify what you think about the longevity of your consciousness?