Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Elendur]

what knowledge am I claiming? All I stated was that information MAY exist in a higher dimension.

Alrighty, posts that gave me the impression:

information can be destroyed too, but because it's massless it exists outside of the time dimension.

Here you definitely talk about something outside the time dimension.
I could go the dull way and say that time is theorized as something to be intimately connected to space, and thus it would also fall outside of space.
Or are you perhaps saying that information exist in the first three dimensions?

actually there are several dimensions that information could coexist in, and not be meaningless (without the mass).

Ok, that's a could. Sorry.

Almost, correct. But we as matter must interpret it, but we work in quantum with things in other dimensions and do not realize it. Information in it's eternity can be affecting us and we would not realize it. So it doesn't require matter to exist, just to be heard or interpreted. But then again who are we to say that information is not interpreted in a alternate dimension without mass. So you are almost right.

Here you definitely claim knowledge about the additional dimensions.

So you have claimed things quite worthy of noting.

 

[mzungu]

Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message. Information can be recorded as signs, or transmitted as signals. Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system. Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed. This concept has numerous other meanings in different contexts.[1] Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, representation, and especially entropy.

wikipedia

The definition you have furnished is extremely broad. Would you care to be more specific please and how this relates to the "SOUL"?

Is this what you mean? Information 'not lost' in black holes - physicsworld.com

Philosophically speaking if the soul is eternal then information cannot be destroyed. If information can be destroyed then information is not eternal and even God cannot be eternal. It has been said that information cannot be destroyed and when matter is "sucked" into a balck hole then the information must remain at the event horizon since information cannot be destroyed.
The beauty of science is that the more questions we have then the more chance we will come to an answer that is valid.

As for your "SOUL" I think you have not furnished us with enough "information" (pun intended) to be able to ascertain if it is possible or not!

 

[createdtoworship]

The definition you have furnished is extremely broad. Would you care to be more specific please and how this relates to the "SOUL"?

Is this what you mean? Information 'not lost' in black holes - physicsworld.com

Philosophically speaking if the soul is eternal then information cannot be destroyed. If information can be destroyed then information is not eternal and even God cannot be eternal. It has been said that information cannot be destroyed and when matter is "sucked" into a balck hole then the information must remain at the event horizon since information cannot be destroyed.
The beauty of science is that the more questions we have then the more chance we will come to an answer that is valid.

As for your "SOUL" I think you have not furnished us with enough "information" (pun intended) to be able to ascertain if it is possible or not!

the soul is just information. It's the software the runs the hardware (the body). When we die our weight does not change because the soul has no mass. and when it leaves the body it does not change that weight. Secondly, all software is information and is eternal as well. We can destroy information, software etc, but I believe it is just reorganized in a subspace or alternate dimension. It may infact exist in the alternate dimension at all times, only interfacing with our reality when decoded in our systems. This is what I mean by information.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

the soul is just information. It's the software the runs the hardware (the body). When we die our weight does not change because the soul has no mass. and when it leaves the body it does not change that weight. Secondly, all software is information and is eternal as well. We can destroy information, software etc, but I believe it is just reorganized in a subspace or alternate dimension. It may infact exist in the alternate dimension at all times, only interfacing with our reality when decoded in our systems. This is what I mean by information.

Just out of interest, do all animals have a soul, or just the conscious ones?

 

[createdtoworship]

Just out of interest, do all animals have a soul, or just the conscious ones?

animals have souls, some believe they go to heaven - I however am unsure

 

[Michael]

Information requires mass or its equivalent, energy, in the sense that it is the arrangement of mass or energy that conveys information. So the notion that information is "massless" is somewhat meaningless in a way, perhaps like saying 'information is blue'.

Does my flash drive gain any actual mass when I save data to it?

 

[mzungu]

Does my flash drive gain any actual mass when I save data to it?

It takes energy to save information on a flash drive. So what is your point? We know how we save data on a flash drive and how it happens; Why don't you enlighten us with the mathematical model of how the SOUL interacts with the brain eh?

 

[Michael]

It takes energy to save information on a flash drive. So what is your point?

My point is that the information itself (or lack thereof) doesn't actually change the mass of the flash drive. It's therefore irrational to insist that SOUL must NECESSARILY contain rest mass.

 

[Michael]

The Poynting vector is only defined for large scale electromagnetic fields and it cannot be applied to single photons.

The rest is basically garbage because of this mistake.

I see no evidence that your objection/claim is valid, specifically that it CANNOT be applied to single photons or to light as a whole. In fact I've gone back and looked through a number of discussions of his work in cyberspace and I've never seen anyone object to that formula.

 

[Guy1]

My point is that the information itself (or lack thereof) doesn't actually change the mass of the flash drive. It's therefore irrational to insist that SOUL must NECESSARILY contain rest mass.

You forget that there's still mass representing the information. Information itself is an abstract concept that can be represented in reality. It has no weight, no sound, no color, no nothing.

 

[Michael]

You forget that there's still mass representing the information. Information itself is an abstract concept that can be represented in reality. It has no weight, no sound, no color, no nothing.

But that's true for awareness and for information. Awareness and information are not quantifiable in terms of their rest mass. It's therefore not logical to expect that 'soul' is quantifiable in terms of "rest mass". Assuming soul exists, it is highly unlikely to posses rest mass in fact.

 

[Guy1]

But that's true for awareness and for information. Awareness and information are not quantifiable in terms of their rest mass. It's therefore not logical to expect that 'soul' is quantifiable in terms of "rest mass". Assuming soul exists, it is highly unlikely to posses rest mass in fact.

You keep forgetting that these are abstract concepts. Much like the number 1, those awareness and information are not "things", strictly speaking. They do not exist, but can be represented in physical reality.

Moving back to "1." It's not a "real" thing. It's a concept we made up that can be represented in reality. We can scribble down the symbol "1" on the chalk board and assign all the logical underpinnings of this number to that symbol. But no matter what, it's just the physical representation of the concept. You cannot actually hold "1", but you can hold a picture of it's physical representation, or a little statue of it, or even a piece of paper with it.

Am I getting through to you?

 

[Michael]

You keep forgetting that these are abstract concepts. Much like the number 1, those awareness and information are not "things", strictly speaking. They do not exist, but can be represented in physical reality.

Actually, I would argue that a memory is in fact a physical "thing" in the sense that it can be "recalled" by the use of electrical stimuli of specific areas of the brain. There is a specific physical method by which information is stored in the brain, and there is a specific physical method used to access it. Whatever the actual physical method might be, it is physical, and the brain does physically store information.

Am I getting through to you?

From my vantage point, you seem not to be differentiating between the physical storage mechanisms and and the physical container, vs. the "mental concepts" that are physically stored in that physical container.

A soul would still require a "physical container" of some kind, and a "physical mechanism" to store and retrieve information in the ABSENCE of a physical brain. That physical container of soul however need not have "rest mass" in any conventional sense of the word.

 

[Guy1]

Actually, I would argue that a memory is in fact a physical "thing" in the sense that it can be "recalled" by the use of electrical stimuli of specific areas of the brain. There is a specific physical method by which information is stored in the brain, and there is a specific physical method used to access it. Whatever the actual physical method might be, it is physical, and the brain does physically store information.

You're proving my point. All that's stored is the physical representation of a memory. The memory itself does not actually exist as a "thing." All your brain does is scramble around to represent the information in itself. It never actually stores the memory itself.

From my vantage point, you seem not to be differentiating between the physical storage mechanisms and and the physical container, vs. the "mental concepts" that are physically stored in that physical container.

You're committing the Reification fallacy. You keep treating these abstract things as though they actually exist. As such I won't even bother your rehashing of the usual dribble that follows from this. The concepts do not actually exist. They can only be represented in a physical medium.

 

[Michael]

You're proving my point. All that's stored is the physical representation of a memory.

I suppose we're talking past each other, because I agree with you on that point.

The memory itself does not actually exist as a "thing." All your brain does is scramble around to represent the information in itself. It never actually stores the memory itself.

I'm not quite following you when you get to the part where you claim it's 'never actually stores the memory itself"? What is *IT* which you are referring to exactly? What do you mean by the term "memory'?

The concepts do not actually exist. They can only be represented in a physical medium.

Sorry, but here you seem to have lost me. Gravity exist. I can experience it, have memories of it, learn math formulas related to that concept. Gravity is 'real' beyond my personal human experience of it, and beyond my personal "memories" and my personal "awareness" of it. Real forces of nature exist whether I'm aware of them or not.

AFAIK, we both seem to agree that information and awareness of that information requires a real physical medium to exist in (in our case a brain). A soul capable of memory and awareness would therefore still require a physical form of some kind , say a Higgs field composed of Higgs particles only, in order for "memories" to be stored, retrieved, etc. Whatever the storage/retrieval/replay mechanisms involved in awareness and memory, they would still necessarily need to be "physical" in some way, shape or "form", even if it is a completely quantum state.

 

[Guy1]

I'm not quite following you when you get to the part where you claim it's 'never actually stores the memory itself"? What is *IT* which you are referring to exactly? What do you mean by the term "memory'?

The past experience itself. The most you get is a (shoddy) representation of it that is changed every time you access it.

Sorry, but here you seem to have lost me. Gravity exist. I can experience it, have memories of it, learn math formulas related to that concept. Gravity is 'real' beyond my personal human experience of it, and beyond my personal "memories" and my personal "awareness" of it. Real forces of nature exist whether I'm aware of them or not.

Sorry but forces of nature =/= abstract concepts.

AFAIK, we both seem to agree that information and awareness of that information requires a real physical medium to exist in (in our case a brain). A soul capable of memory and awareness would therefore still require a physical form of some kind , say a Higgs field composed of Higgs particles only, in order for "memories" to be stored, retrieved, etc. Whatever the storage/retrieval/replay mechanisms involved in awareness and memory, they would still necessarily need to be "physical" in some way, shape or "form", even if it is a completely quantum state.

So after all this, you finally admit that it requires a physical form to exist. "You" exist in the brain, and once that dies, "you" cease to exist. The information that makes up your very being is completely abstract, and is only represented in your brain. Unless you can demonstrate some other mechanism where this information can be represented, then I don't quite see where you're going with this.

 

[Michael]

The past experience itself. The most you get is a (shoddy) representation of it that is changed every time you access it.

Such mental limitations don't seem to have gotten in the way of anyone producing a computer or a cell phone or a iPad. All stuff breaks and goes bad over time. Surely you can't be suggesting that awareness and/or memory are somehow less 'real' due to their temporal nature?

Sorry but forces of nature =/= abstract concepts.

Abstract concept or not, we all EXPERIENCE and have "memories" of something called "gravity' that (fortunately) makes us stick to the this planet, along with our atmosphere. The mind/brain is simply a "tool" with which we study "reality" as it exists. This planet is "real". Gravity is "real".

So after all this, you finally admit that it requires a physical form to exist.

Haven't you been paying attention? I've never once deviated from that position!

"You" exist in the brain,

No. I do not. I exist as a SOUL that inhabits this form. This form has "memories" and it's "aware" of things around it.

and once that dies, "you" cease to exist.

If that were the case, then we would not expect folks to claim to meet God during near death experiences, and we would not expect them to have "out of body" experiences. Unfortunately for your claim, folks do report such events during NDE's, about 4 times more frequently than "atheists" appear in any given population in fact.

The information that makes up your very being is completely abstract, and is only represented in your brain.

Yes, I know how the atheistic meme works. I simply don't agree with it.

Unless you can demonstrate some other mechanism where this information can be represented, then I don't quite see where you're going with this.

I provided two such references a few pages back (two and a half if you include the one accidental metaphysical link). You might look them up at least and see that people are in fact interested in the physics related to 'soul'.

The only point I was making earlier is that any expectation of "soul" to have "rest mass" is a silly expectation.

 

[mzungu]

Actually, I would argue that a memory is in fact a physical "thing" in the sense that it can be "recalled" by the use of electrical stimuli of specific areas of the brain. There is a specific physical method by which information is stored in the brain, and there is a specific physical method used to access it. Whatever the actual physical method might be, it is physical, and the brain does physically store information.

From my vantage point, you seem not to be differentiating between the physical storage mechanisms and and the physical container, vs. the "mental concepts" that are physically stored in that physical container.

A soul would still require a "physical container" of some kind, and a "physical mechanism" to store and retrieve information in the ABSENCE of a physical brain. That physical container of soul however need not have "rest mass" in any conventional sense of the word.

But you still have not brought forth any evidence for this thing you call a SOUL. If you relegate it to the realm of talking snakes then no argument there but if you want to attribute to it a scientific definition then may I suggest you stay with the talking snake; It makes more sense that way albeit only in spirit!

 

[Michael]

But you still have not brought forth any evidence for this thing you call a SOUL.

You mean except for those near neath experiences that include out of body reports, atheists claiming to meet "God", etc?

If you relegate it to the realm of talking snakes then no argument there but if you want to attribute to it a scientific definition then may I suggest you stay with the talking snake; It makes more sense that way albeit only in spirit!

Somewhere back a few pages I provided links to a couple of books that attempt to "quantify" soul. I don't suppose you've even looked at them?

 

[Elendur]

Haven't you been paying attention? I've never once deviated from that position!

No. I do not. I exist as a SOUL that inhabits this form. This form has "memories" and it's "aware" of things around it.

So what you're saying (/writing) is that the memories of the brain isn't the same as the memories of the soul?