Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[createdtoworship]

OK, so we have a conciousness, we have a 'moral law' orcode of conduct which is pretty much universal (give or take a few changes betweeen cultures, so whether or not it is primarily cultural or 'in-built' is debatable) - so where does the soul come from?
Why is it so elusive, if it has such a measurable effect on our thoughts and behaviour?

Morality has nothing to do with a soul, because if it did there would be no need for a written, god-given universal set of laws.

well the law is not intellectually known, it's known by intuition. The soul comes into play when we speak of intuition.

 

[mzungu]

secondly, the reason why we wouldnot see the code, is because it is massless.

How convenient So how does this MASSLESS code able to affect mass Hint: (this time try adding polka dotted unicorns to the formula).

 

[createdtoworship]

How convenient So how does this MASSLESS code able to affect mass Hint: (this time try adding polka dotted unicorns to the formula).

all information is massless

 

[mzungu]

all information is massless

You have failed to show me how your massless code interacts with matter. Unless you can do that then you may as well talk about fairies and unicorns!

 

[createdtoworship]

You have failed to show me how your massless code interacts with matter. Unless you can do that then you may as well talk about fairies and unicorns!

like I said all information is massless every time you send an text over a phone it's massless. So obviously massless info can interact with matter.

 

[mzungu]

like I said all information is massless every time you send an text over a phone it's massless. So obviously massless info can interact with matter.

The information sent over a phone line is either in electrons or photons. Both use the binary system and the noughts and ones are translated into meaningful code. The information is thus carried by electrons or photons but by themselves are useless. Now unless you can answer my question then I shall regard this debate as meaningless make believe rubbish!

 

[Michael]

Time needs mass to operate, because time varies with mass, acceleration, and gravity.

so since the soul has no mass, the soul is outside of time.

By default the soul HAS to be eternal.

Hell must be eternal as well.

FYI, whereas soul is indeed eternal, "gehenna" was never associated with eternal torment in Judaism or early Christianity. The concept of "eternal torment" was a PAGAN (from Greek mythology) concept related to 'hades'. It has NOTHING to do with the 'hell' that Origen describes in Early Christianity, and it has NOTHING to do with the concept of Gehenna in Judaism. Both Origen and Judaism describe "hell" as a temporal place of "soul cleansing", not a place of perpetual torment. Hell is not "eternal" according to Origen, it simply serves a purpose, specifically the purpose of soul cleansing. That is entirely consistent with the concept of 'gehenna' that the Jewish Messiah described to a JEWISH audience.

 

[Michael]

You have failed to show me how your massless code interacts with matter. Unless you can do that then you may as well talk about fairies and unicorns!

Then you might as well claim gravitons are faeries and inflation unicorns in the sky are useless as well. You can toss out dark energy, dark matter, MOND theory, string theory, pretty much QM in it's entirety and 95 percent of the "theoretical universe" in fact. You guys are AMAZING in terms of the complete double standards you impose. Slap the term "science' to the concept and evidently "anything goes". Put the term "God" in there, even a purely EMPIRICAL concept of "God", and you want "empirical support" right down to the demonstrated cause/effect links. Even when such links exist (external EM fields interacting with human thought), you pretty much ignore them.

If a physically demonstrated cause/effect link MUST exist for "soul" to be considered a "scientific" concept, why aren't you imposing those exact same standards on all things, even "scientific" ones?

 

[Michael]

Again, you posit a soul exists, because of it's non-existent properties.

Guthanity (inflation theory) is different in what way exactly? Dark energy faeries in the sky come from WHERE exactly? String theory has empirical support in what way exactly? Gravitons? Tachyons?

 

[Michael]

OK, so we have a conciousness, we have a 'moral law' orcode of conduct which is pretty much universal (give or take a few changes betweeen cultures, so whether or not it is primarily cultural or 'in-built' is debatable) - so where does the soul come from?
Why is it so elusive, if it has such a measurable effect on our thoughts and behaviour?

Ya know...... This same argument applies to most of theoretical physics but I don't see you guys out crusading against theoretical physics, or rejecting theoretical physics as valid studies within the scientific community.

What is UP with that BLATANT double standard?

 

[mzungu]

Then you might as well claim gravitons are faeries and inflation unicorns in the sky are useless as well. You can toss out dark energy, dark matter, MOND theory, string theory, pretty much QM in it's entirety and 95 percent of the "theoretical universe" in fact. You guys are AMAZING in terms of the complete double standards you impose. Slap the term "science' to the concept and evidently "anything goes". Put the term "God" in there, even a purely EMPIRICAL concept of "God", and you want "empirical support" right down to the demonstrated cause/effect links. Even when such links exist (external EM fields interacting with human thought), you pretty much ignore them.

If a physically demonstrated cause/effect link MUST exist for "soul" to be considered a "scientific" concept, why aren't you imposing those exact same standards on all things, even "scientific" ones?

All the theories you mention have mathematical models to back them, so where is your mathematical model of the soul You don't have one Well its back to make believe then eh

 

[Michael]

All the theories you mention have mathematical models to back them, so where is your mathematical model of the soul You don't have one Well its back to make believe then eh

Nope:
Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Field models of soul have been around for awhile now.

 

[Non sequitur]

Nope:
Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Field models of soul have been around for awhile now.

I don't think I've ever seen so many words with quotes around them, in my life...


"He proposes that there is a field within and around a "morphic unit"..."

Noun
morphic unit (plural morphic units)
A unit of form, organization or arrangement of any size

"According to Sheldrake, the "morphic field" underlies the formation and behaviour of "holons"... "

A holon (Greek: ὅλον, holon neuter form of ὅλος, holos "whole") is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part. The word was coined by Arthur Koestler in his book The Ghost in the Machine (1967, p. 48)...



This is more heavy than Scientology...

 

[mzungu]

Nope:
Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Field models of soul have been around for awhile now.

You must be joking Parapsychology, and paranormal activity is NOT SCIENCE! If you are going to give as examples a nutcase who uses "alternative science" Then we are back to fairies and unicorns

 

[mkatzwork]

Nope:
Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Field models of soul have been around for awhile now.

Don't see any mathematics in those "models". Don't even begin to compare them to the extensions of the standard model which are based on solid mathematics. That's like comparing Proust with a third-grader's first attempts at creative writing.

They are interesting lines of philosophical reasoning and mildly diverting at best, but they're not mathematical models unlike all of the things you cited as being worthy of being 'tossed out'.

There is no double standard here - if you can actually show anything - anything empirical, or mathematical based on prior established ideas, that would support the notion that consciousness and the soul are something as yet unobserved and a physical reality, you'd be getting somewhere.

You can't.

Dark energy and dark matter are still around because they are good, mathematical models for the observed problem - that the evidence points to the fact that universe should have much more mass than we see. The maths can be shown to work with them being hypothesized. There have been many times in science where something unseen has been proposed to solve something that is seen...the discovery of the electron, for a good example - but it has to actually fit the picture in some way. Just saying "I think there is a field that is responsible for the 'soul'" both ignores that we don't live at the quantum level (easily observed by the fact that we used Newton's equations to get Voyagers 1 and 2 out of the solar system), and the only reason for said 'soul' existing is because you like the idea. It doesn't complete any other theory, doesn't support any mathematical ideas, doesn't explain any empirical observations, or in fact any observations at all other than untestable, unrepeatable anecdote.

There MAY be other explanations for dark matter, dark energy, inflation and so on, and they may be right, but there is no religion involved just because a consensus of experts in the field currently think one hypothesis is stronger than the others. There's a consensus. That's all.

If you don't like that, and you want to go up against the consensus, you're entirely welcome to - you have to bring something better with solid evidence that can be repeated or falsified, something creationists just don't get when they want evolutionary theory actually tossed out purely on the basis of a perceived conflict with their holy book. Just whining that there's a consensus and you don't agree with it, and calling it a "religion" to try and be perjorative (a curious thing given your faith icon) doesn't achieve anything.


Do you think that scientists who think there is such a thing as the Oort Cloud are practicing a religion? We have no direct observations of its existence, just indirect (eg. comets), just like we have no direct observation of inflation (having not been there when it happened and now only seeing artifacts potentially caused by it). It's largely supported by mathematical models that make a great deal of sense.


Incidentally, you are just flat out WRONG when you refer to inflation being dead. It's very alive. Hawking's recent work is worth reading and has implications that will be testable (and will be tested) by Planck.

Were you aware of his bet with Neil Turok regarding tensor/scalar ratios in the gravitational waves that his hypothesis predicts will be visible in finer measurements of the CMB? It's entirely possible that he'll be proved right, and it's possible they'll both be proved wrong, but the likeliest scenario where that happens would be if the universe is supersymmetric - which would be something of a partial validation for string theory.

 

[Michael]

Gah, wrong Wiki link:

Roger Penrose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E,[18] calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the paper is summed up by this statement in Tegmark's support: "Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John A. Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior'".[19] Tegmark's paper has been widely cited by critics of the Penrose–Hameroff position.

Man that *IS* embarrassing. I didn't even check the link after posting it. Sorry about that.

 

[Michael]

You must be joking

Er, no I just grabbed the wrong link.

Sorry.

 

[Michael]

Penrose isn't necessarily advocating a "soul" by the way, he's simply describes a quantum sort of explanation for "consciousness".

 

[mkatzwork]

Penrose isn't necessarily advocating a "soul" by the way, he's simply describes a quantum sort of explanation for "consciousness".

The idea got pretty much hammered already:

Phys. Rev. E 80, 021912 (2009): Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible

 

[mkatzwork]

(and incidentally, that still doesn't leap into any kind of supernatural realm - and doesn't support in any way the idea that we could have any kind of mental faculty not arising from brain activity)