Thermal Dynamics Disproves Afterlife

[Chris_com28]

I've heard a few times that thermal dynamics disproves the afterlife. I can't remember which law this is, but I've been searching on the Internet and I've been unable to find any information on it. I'm wondering if anyone else knows what they're talking about.

[Korpo]

Perhaps you look up something first to reference? That would be helpful.

Oliver

[ButterflyWoman]

According to Wikipedia, Thermodynamics:


Thermodynamics studies the effects of changes in temperature, pressure, and volume on physical systems at the macroscopic scale by analysing the collective motion of their particles using statistics. Roughly, heat means "energy in transit" and dynamics relates to "movement"; thus, in essence thermodynamics studies the movement of energy and how energy instills movement. Historically, thermodynamics developed out of need to increase the efficiency of early steam engines.
I'm sure that some skeptical scientific sorts could use it to "prove" that there can't be an afterlife, mostly because they assume that spiritual energy (i.e., consciousness, which is something science can't even define at all) is measurable.

I've also heard it said that "simple mathematics" can be used to disprove reincarnation. I remain unconvinced.

I've got nothing at all against science. It's an extremely useful field. However, it has plenty of limitations. Determining "proof" for or against non-physical things like life after death seems well out of the scope of science.

[sleeper]

if you found proof that there is no afterlife, what would you do with that info? how would it change your life?

[Fish]

It wouldn't change mine

[Korpo]

if you found proof that there is no afterlife, what would you do with that info? how would it change your life?

Well, if it all would just end one day - what would be there to fear? I mean - if my existence simply ended, what would I really care? I couldn't.

Life itself would be just meaningless, though. What would we strive for? To what end? Improvement, learning - what would they be good for?

I have fears about the process of dying, real non-existence seems almost meaningless compared to it. Coming to think of it the human mind is not built to truly accept an end to its existence, IMO. IMO our mind cannot imagine not existing in some form.

Oliver

[CFTraveler]

I think you may be talking about entropy here, which proves nothing. The reason being that in the theory of entropy, anything that has or is energy will eventually find the point in which it stops existing. Which of course is not even remotely connected to the ideas of the afterlife.
At least with linear thinking.

The same about the reincarnation-math conundrum.
The math thing would make sense if reincarnation were a linear event, but since most of us come to understand it as a holographic event, again it means nothing.

Just attempts to quantify the unquantifiable, and then dismiss it when it's shown to 'not be' quantifiable.

Which leads me to point out, that scientists (at least the ones that care to admit it) have admitted that information is not energy. So the form energy takes is not quantifiable either. Yet we can see it. So maybe energy can stop existing, but information never 'existed' in the way energy does. Hee hee!!!! *cackles madly*

[Hibby]

I'd have to agree, i don't see how maths and thermal dynamics would be able to prove the after life doesn't exists. There's just no relation between them.

Well, if it all would just end one day - what would be there to fear? I mean - if my existence simply ended, what would I really care? I couldn't.
I'd be disappointed in humanity if their only reason to treat each other well was the fear of hell and the rewards of heaven. But perhaps the morals and ethics are already imprinted within me, i wonder if without them I'd still respect life.

If it was the case that there is no after life then the meaning of life is just simply to protect one's existence and its future. That is the human race can be considered a single entity in which each human plays a role in allowing the race as a whole to exist and to continue to exist by evolving and such.

[Chris_com28]

Perhaps you look up something first to reference? That would be helpful.
If you had read my post properly you would know that I've already looked for some reference, but found none. My guess at all if this acutally is a well known article it's just so bad that people exept, the really arrogant ones, just stopped talking about it because it's just so bad. It's like the one about reincarnation I heard once. "If reincarnation exists then why don't people remember their previous lives?" I'll leave that one for you to figure out. :wink:


I'm sure that some skeptical scientific sorts could use it to "prove" that there can't be an afterlife, mostly because they assume that spiritual energy (i.e., consciousness, which is something science can't even define at all) is measurable.
It's probably due to assumtions that spiritual energy must behave in normal scientific ways. Though quantum physics doesn't make much sense, yet that was brought into mainstream physics. I think the argument was about the law of entropy. I think that was mentioned a few times by different people.


if you found proof that there is no afterlife, what would you do with that info? how would it change your life?
I don't think it would change mine. I was merely curious. It's in our nature to be curious of the unknown.


Well, if it all would just end one day - what would be there to fear? I mean - if my existence simply ended, what would I really care? I couldn't.
Exactly. It reminds me how people clutch onto the idea of an afterlife. Like life would be unbearable without it. Just be thankful that you've had this one and you don't have to suffer any more. In some ways I find the idea of no afterlife even more appealing than the idea that there is. You think it's going to be easy once you're dead? I highly doubt it. I don't know how people could think that you work hard for about 70 years then you go to heaven to party hard with the big G for eternity. Seems too hopeful for me.

After asking here it seems not many people know anything about this argument at all. I've resorted to asking a friend who stated it a few times before, but I didn't want to resort to him as he probably gets some kind of arrogant high from being asked this. Anyway, I'll reply with what he said to see if we can understand it.

[CFTraveler]

Perhaps you look up something first to reference? That would be helpful.
If you had read my post properly you would know that I've already looked for some reference, but found none. My guess at all if this acutally is a well known article it's just so bad that people exept, the really arrogant ones, just stopped talking about it because it's just so bad. It's like the one about reincarnation I heard once. "If reincarnation exists then why don't people remember their previous lives?" I'll leave that one for you to figure out. :wink:

I think he was asking you what part of Thermodynamics was used to disprove the afterlife. The only reason I linked it to entropy is that I had heard a similar argument for the non-eternity of the physical universe. A depressing realization, if you consider life only as a material item.


I don't know how people could think that you work hard for about 70 years then you go to heaven to party hard with the big G for eternity. Seems too hopeful for me.
I suppose it's as unreasonable as to expect 'eternal punishment' for someone who has done bad things in life. It just doesn't add up. But, like I said, these are ideas that are based on the view of reality as purely objective. And I think that we know better than that.

[Chris_com28]

Well I asked him about it recently and he said he doesn't know, but claims it's obvious to scientists. He also mentions it whenever the afterlife is mentioned in hopes of debunking it. He also seems think that it's really easy to find articles on it as if you can just type a few words into Google and it will come up. Though he did give me some hints about it. He said something how energy would have to be coming from somewhere else to keep the soul functioning. I think he's talking about the law of entropy. The same argument is used by Christians to debunk evolution, though they forget that Earth is not a closed system. The same may be said about our etheric astral bodies. It seems like a really weak argument.

I saw a video a while ago which shown evidence for an afterlife. I was going to post it here as a random treat, but I can't find it. :(

[Korpo]

The basic assumption underlying his thinking is that the physical body is important and the soul is powered by it. Problem is, nobody tried to state that. Many esoteric schools would have it rather that the physical body is just the least subtle aspect of your soul, and surely not the other way round.

Oliver

[ButterflyWoman]

Well I asked him about it recently and he said he doesn't know, but claims it's obvious to scientists.
Well, my friend said that he heard that some university in Wisconsin did some experiment or something that proved that humans evolved from clams or whatever. Who are you to question science?

:P :twisted:


He also mentions it whenever the afterlife is mentioned in hopes of debunking it.
Just tell him that it's okay if he chooses not to believe in an afterlife. He doesn't have to twist the laws of thermal dynamics to support his choice.


He also seems think that it's really easy to find articles on it as if you can just type a few words into Google and it will come up.
Perhaps he could put his money where his mouth is and cough up the articles?


Though he did give me some hints about it.
Hints? Why not give you the actual, you know, articles that supposedly confirm this theory of his?


It seems like a really weak argument.
And a really weak arguer, too. ;)

Seriously, this person sounds like a blow hard to me. I've met plenty of them. They use arguments about how "if you did your research" or "everyone knows" or "science has proven" or whatever and then when you ask, genuinely and seriously, for specifics, they hem and haw and can't come up with the goods. This is a pretty good indicator that they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, they could give you the information you're asking for.

[Hibby]

no good scientist will make a claim he/she can't prove. Not even the greatest scientific minds will make claim to no afterlife. they'll say they don't believe in an afterlife and that's about it, but that is usually the peer pressure you get from being a scientist.

[Chris_com28]

The basic assumption underlying his thinking is that the physical body is important and the soul is powered by it. Problem is, nobody tried to state that. Many esoteric schools would have it rather that the physical body is just the least subtle aspect of your soul, and surely not the other way round.
I always thought that the soul (or the etheric body) powered the physical body. Please tell me how I'm wrong.


Well, my friend said that he heard that some university in Wisconsin did some experiment or something that proved that humans evolved from clams or whatever. Who are you to question science?
Lol. That's the kind of reasoing of his argument. Just mentions some study that can't be tracked down at all and claiming it as science. It's like the myths circling on the Internet that I occaisonally debunk.


Just tell him that it's okay if he chooses not to believe in an afterlife. He doesn't have to twist the laws of thermal dynamics to support his choice.
Well it's not ok. He doesn't believe something and he has to make everyone else belive the same thing as him or else his beliefs are worthless. I mean what use is it believing in something if other people don't believe you. That's the thing with trying to convince people of something. You spend all that time trying to make them see things your way you forget to make an argument that can't be blown down with a huff and a puff, like a house (or a man, maybe) made out of straw. :lol:


Perhaps he could put his money where his mouth is and cough up the articles?
I should tell that to him whenever he talks talking about that again. I could tell him that he really shouldn't keep mentioning it as Gospel unless he has the references to back it up. It's like someone trying to verify the Jesus myth (no offense to any Christians reading this) by saying that he wrote the Bible and that's that.


[And a really weak arguer, too.

Seriously, this person sounds like a blow hard to me. I've met plenty of them. They use arguments about how "if you did your research" or "everyone knows" or "science has proven" or whatever and then when you ask, genuinely and seriously, for specifics, they hem and haw and can't come up with the goods. This is a pretty good indicator that they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, they could give you the information you're asking for.
That sounds like him alright. The amount of times he's tried to preach to me (and they say atheists don't care what people believe, complete BS) about how wrong I am. What's funny is that I don't even pick arguments. He sort of has this idea that because he's fairly intelligent and reads something he believes in then he must be right. It doesn't matter about all the other information to to contrary. He's also found of saying that OBEs are some mental illness or something because he read an article somewhere. Well I've also read articles and it never said that.

Well not to insult him too much, but it's good to get this off my chest. I'm kind of glad that he's moving out as I'm getting annoyed about him hinting that I'm stupid for my beliefs. I've spoken to him at times (when he's a little more open) and he just wish people wouldn't believe so blindly woild be more of a skeptic. Funny thing is that I hate blind faith and enjoy being skeptical and tried to get that across to him, though he's probably of the mindset that believers in the paranormal can't be skeptics. That one assumption really annoys me.

[ButterflyWoman]

Just tell him that it's okay if he chooses not to believe in an afterlife. He doesn't have to twist the laws of thermal dynamics to support his choice.
Well it's not ok. He doesn't believe something and he has to make everyone else belive the same thing as him or else his beliefs are worthless.
That's because he's NOT comfortable with his choice of beliefs in this case. He's afraid that he's wrong, and in his mind, being wrong has very serious negative consequences of some sort. In order to prove to himself that he's right, he has to prove that people with a counter opinion are wrong.


He sort of has this idea that because he's fairly intelligent and reads something he believes in then he must be right.
Because he can't risk the idea that he could be wrong. Watch him for a while. You'll see what I'm talking about. Other people MUST be wrong in order for him to be right, and the idea of him being wrong is something he will try to avoid at absolutely all costs. If he ever is caught in something that appears he was wrong, he'll "explain" why he wasn't really, and it was actually someone else who was wrong, while he was in the right all along.

It's fear. That's the core of this kind of behaviour. Oh, and it's nothing to do with atheism or any other style of belief or non-belief.


I'm kind of glad that he's moving out as I'm getting annoyed about him hinting that I'm stupid for my beliefs.
Don't be surprised if you hear the word "delusional", too. That's a favourite.


I've spoken to him at times (when he's a little more open) and he just wish people wouldn't believe so blindly woild be more of a skeptic.
Well, I feel the same way. A little discernment goes a long way. BUT, skepticism doesn't have to include scoffing, ridiculing, belittling, and so on.


he's probably of the mindset that believers in the paranormal can't be skeptics. That one assumption really annoys me.
That's because you're delusional. Duh.

;)

[Hibby]

lol he sounds like the kind of guy to make straight forward conclusions without room for x factors, when you tell him what could be wrong with it he doesn't bother considering the possibility and thus isn't able to realise the possible flaws in his theory until it hits him hard.
I think arguments on religious beliefs are mostly psychology related, many (not all) atheist i've spoken to put themselves on a glass pedestal until they realise the glass is quite hollow. So they end up putting themselves above others but at the same time is afraid that the pedestal might break. When people do something that they have the slightest doubt in they'll try to drag other people along with them, when more than one person is at fault no one is at fault - Murphy's law ehehe.


Well, I feel the same way. A little discernment goes a long way. BUT, skepticism doesn't have to include scoffing, ridiculing, belittling, and so on.
there are quite a number of people out there who blindly follow their beliefs and that's probably where most of the skepticism comes from, but you can't really blame them, not everyone chooses to chases after the sun.

[Chris_com28]

lol he sounds like the kind of guy to make straight forward conclusions without room for x factors, when you tell him what could be wrong with it he doesn't bother considering the possibility and thus isn't able to realise the possible flaws in his theory until it hits him hard.
That sounds a lot like him. Also not being able to accept that he's right also sounds like him. I've observed this a few times.

[lightningbug]

this reminds me of the skeptics saying that NDEs are caused by the brain shutting down systematically. that they were witnessing their own brain shutting down causing the tunnel vision

and how many of the skeptics clinged onto it for dear life

it annoyed me to no ends considering they didnt first explain HOW YOU CAN SEE YOUR OWN BRAIN to begin with!

[CFTraveler]

Especially when it's 'off'. :D

[ButterflyWoman]

And how do they explain that you saw or heard things going on around you that you couldn't have seen or heard because you were actually dead at the time?

[Korpo]

Sounds like the script for the old movie "Flatliners".

Oliver

[Chris_com28]

it annoyed me to no ends considering they didnt first explain HOW YOU CAN SEE YOUR OWN BRAIN to begin with!
I think you may have misunderstood the explanation, though it wouldn't supprise me if a so-called "skeptic" came up with something as stupid as that. The argument that I heard (that actually makes some sense) was that with the brain dying so does the retina and it dies from the outside to the centre, therefore giving the "illusion" of going through a tunnel"

Though, like Older said there's cases of people being fully conscious during NDEs and being able recite what surgeons have said during the operation. Something that may be hard for a brain that's effectively dead.


Especially when it's 'off'.
Well the argument is that the "hallucination" occures just before the death of the brain. Though a few scientists have commented on how this would be unlikely due to the fact that the person usually has amnesia and can't remember what happened just before and after the NDE.

[CFTraveler]

I'm aware that the scientific explanation is that the whole thing happens before 'official death', but I was also thinking about the times when the person reports what people said in other rooms after they were 'officially' dead.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Chris_com28]

That's ok. It's just that you didn't mention that in the post and it seemed you were unaware of the other explanation.