Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

Doveaman said:

My view of the soul is that it communicates with the body through the brain. So if the brain is altered or damaged, the soul's ability to communicate with the body becomes disrupted. The brain may become altered or damaged, but the soul is not. However, the soul's mechanism for communicating with the body is no longer functional, therefore the soul has no way of communicating with the body.

The soul and brain working together give rise to the human mind.

Click to expand...

I like this view. The brain is like a transmitter/receiver. Without it, we could not have this human experience.

Elendur said:

Why would you say he knows only 5% of the information related to his line of work? In fact, how would you know he knows that little (since you would probably know a lot less)?

Click to expand...

Because he confessed to it on his own website:

“More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has
never been directly detected…23% Cold Dark Matter…72% Dark Energy.”

Michael said:

Well, it wasn't exactly great grammar, but the idea was correct. If you're going to pull a "consensus is all that matters" argument on me, and then claim that everyone outside of that consensus is a "slackjawed hillbilly", then that leaves you as an atheist simply swinging in the wind as it relates to the topic of God and the consensus of the "experts" in that particular field. By your own logic, you're nothing but a "slackjawed hillbilly" on that topic.

Click to expand...

I think I finally get where this is coming from. What do you think my position is on the issue?

Michael said:

We listen to those that we ASSUME know more about the topic than we do.

Click to expand...

We listen to those who have demonstrated that they know more on the topic.

Michael said:

You never demonstrated that they're really all that "smart" in the first place.

Click to expand...

They do a good enough job of that on their own.

Michael said:

You've never demonstrated that being "smart" has anything to do with the QUALIFICATION problems of mainstream theory.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to tire of this buzz word.

Michael said:

You've never shown them to be "smarter" than me, or to you for that matter.

Click to expand...

Again, they do a good enough job of that on their own?

Michael said:

I've talked to them and listened to them for 7 years now in cyberspace.

Click to expand...

Here we go.

Michael said:

They aren't nearly as "smart" as you seem to think they are.

Click to expand...

Of course they're not. Everything Michael says is right.

Michael said:

They're average people (some above average I'm sure) and they make mistakes just like you do, and just like I do. They aren't "smart" because they "understand" dark energy because none of them actually profess to "understand" it in the first place. Not one of them told me that fact, I had to DISCOVER IT ON MY OWN. So much for them being particularly "smart".

Click to expand...

Coolstorybro.

Michael said:

Apparently you're sure "smart people" know something about "dark energy."

Click to expand...

They know it's a term used to describe whatever is causing the acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.

Michael said:

Apparently you have knowledge that I'm a "slackjawed hillbilly". I have no idea how you decided that one.

Click to expand...

Don't worry Michael. Everyone that needs to know already gets it.

Michael said:

So despite your hero worship of astronomers, you apparently know LESS about this subject than a "slackjawed hillbilly'. BEAUTIFUL!

Click to expand...

I know about one of the limits in Einstein's theory of General Relativity, I know the basics of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a layman's understanding of quantum mechanics, and

Michael said:

Right. You shrug while I do real research yet in your mind *I* am the "slackjawed hillbilly". Wow!

Click to expand...

When you claim to know more than actual, trained scientists.

Michael said:

And the term "little" is mean to be personally derogatory I presume?

Click to expand...

It was all one big derogatory remark.

Michael said:

A degree is necessary for some reason?

Click to expand...

It establishes you as an authority on the subject.

Michael said:

It's an obsession with empirical physics and QUALIFICATION, not just "quantification".

Click to expand...

No more of this buzz word.

Michael said:

I'm chastising them for not knowing ANYTHING useful about it!

Click to expand...

That tends to happen when you ask about hypotheses.

Michael said:

More importantly and specifically, I'm chastising YOU for acting like they have some "understanding" of this subject. They have almost NO understanding of this topic.

Click to expand...

They can tell you more in-depth about it. Why it was proposed, and what the possible candidates are. If you want more then you'll have to publish your own research.

Michael said:

If not, why should I believe that my personal statements and ideas are valuable to you or anyone else?

Click to expand...

You really shouldn't. Your statements and ideas on this issue are absolutely worthless.

Michael said:

there would STILL be no qualified empirical link between acceleration and "dark energy".

Click to expand...

You don't seem to get that the term "dark energy" is used to refer to our ignorance on a certain issue.

Michael said:

So really your beliefs on this topic (including your claims about me) were not actually based upon personal KNOWLEDGE of the topic, but upon FAITH in unnamed "scientists" and some concept of a "consensus" that amounts to an appeal to authority fallacy in the final analysis.

Click to expand...

Wonderful. Call it faith so I have to scramble around and explain just why you're wrong. I won't bother to, but go ahead and do it anyways.

This is where my patience is finally exhausted. Claim victory if you want. I'll just sit at home and facepalm at your future posts.

Doveaman said:

If my doctor only understood 5% of the information related to his line of work I would change him quickly.

Click to expand...

That's because a doctor's job is to know disease inside and out. If he were a medical researcher, his ignorance would not really be as much of an issue. Scientists are not payed to know things. They happen to know things due to their line of work; but that's not quite the point of it all.

Doveaman said:

Not if he only understands 5% of the information related to his line of work.

Click to expand...

Dove, you cannot begin to conceive of half the things these people already know by heart. It would do you good to listen to them.

Doveaman said:

Would you say you are naive?

Click to expand...

It depends what we're talking about.

Doveaman said:

My view of the soul is that it communicates with the body through the brain. So if the brain is altered or damaged, the soul's ability to communicate with the body becomes disrupted. The brain may become altered or damaged, but the soul is not. However, the soul's mechanism for communicating with the body is no longer functional, therefore the soul has no way of communicating with the body.

The soul and brain working together give rise to the human mind.

Click to expand...

While I won'rt contradict what you've said here, i will point out that the soul also communicates with the (S)spirit realm, and such contact can influence our soul, greatly, and quickly.

razeontherock said:

While I won'rt contradict what you've said here, i will point out that the soul also communicates with the (S)spirit realm, and such contact can influence our soul, greatly, and quickly.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

I believe that's how God communicates with us. Satan too.

It's a good thing we have the Bible to help us recognize one (S)spirit from the other.

Doveaman said:

I totally agree.

I believe that's how God communicates with us. Satan too.

It's a good thing we have the Bible to help us recognize one (S)spirit from the other.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should put a spirit and a soul in the LHC and see what they're made of?

LifeToTheFullest! said:

Maybe we should put a spirit and a soul in the LHC and see what they're made of?

Click to expand...

I have heard that some whiskeys high in spirit also have a soul

Guy1 said:

I think I finally get where this is coming from. What do you think my position is on the issue?

Click to expand...

I would assume that your atheist icon puts you in the minority position. Furthermore you personally feel compelled to "evangelize the cause" on a "Christian" website no less. I'd say that puts you in a fairly unique category actually. By your logic it makes you a "slackjawed hillbilly" on the topic of God, simply because you're outside the consensus of the rest of humanity.

We listen to those who have demonstrated that they know more on the topic.

Click to expand...

Well, unlike you I do not believe that "ignorance is bliss". I actually spent over seven years listening to them. They actually told me things like electrical discharges cannot occur in plasmas, and plasma redshift had not been observed in the lab. In the case of plasma redshift, I was actually gullible enough to believe them too. Apparently plasma redshift HAS been observed in the lab, and even THAT "faith" I had in them wasn't actually justified by the scientific facts. After awhile one starts to "lose faith" that they actually know more about these topics than I do.

Unlike you I've studied these topics as an adult now for over 35 years. I understand not only THEIR theories, but many other ones as well. I've chosen one I PREFER over their theory because it's based upon pure empirical physics, and it requires no new forms of mass or energy to explain the workings of the universe. What it has PREDICTED for a very long time now is the fact that plasma redshift is a real physical process that occurs in nature and explains the Hubble constant.

Since you really have no clue about the history of cosmology theory, or the importance of redshift to various cosmology theories, let me clue you in just a bit. You might not care one iota, but maybe someone reading along might actually listen and learn something about cosmology theories.

When general relativity theory had been "accepted" by the mainstream to some degree, but was still in it's infancy, Einstein had one remaining problem that he wrestled with. At the time "static universe" theory was the prevailing cosmology beliefs. Astronomers of the time assumed that objects in space were relatively static. All the objects in space had their place, but galaxies were thought to be the same distance from one another.

General relativity had one small problem from Einstein's point of view. It didn't really lend itself well to a "static" scenario. It tended to "predict" either a "contracting" universe, or an expanding universe, but not really a "static" one, where everything stayed in place. To help explain what "force" might help prevent gravity from causing the objects to begin to contract, he introduced a "non zero" constant into GR. Up to that time, the constant existed in the GR formulas, but it was always set to zero. The non zero constant that Einstein entertained wasn't actually "explained" by Einstein. He just noted that a non zero constant (some other force of nature) could help explain why the universe was static rather than contracting or expanding.

Edwin Hubble then came along and noticed a very curious thing about light from distant objects. He noticed and observed the fact that light was "redshifted", it had lost a small amount of it's kinetic energy. Furthermore he noticed a pattern related to distance. The greater the distance, the greater the redshift/loss of momentum of the photon. Today that is known as the "Hubble constant" or "Hubble's law".

That "redshift" was "interpreted" by astronomers in different ways since that time. Static universe proponents proposed "tired light" explanations for that redshift. In other words, they "predicted" (an important thing in science) that light would be affected by the plasma and/or space as they traveled through spacetime. The net effect was a transfer of kinetic energy to plasma in space, and a small loss of kinetic energy in the photon, with a greater loss over a greater distance. That basic concept is called "tired light theory".

Expansion proponents however had a different "interpretation" of that redshift. They proposed the theory of "expansion" as the 'cause' of that redshift. At the time nobody was 'sure' about the exact amount of expansion, but the idea had appeal to some point because "doppler shift" had been observed. You "hear" that effect as a train passes. There's a limit however to how much "redshift" one might explain with that effect however which comes into play much later.

When Einstein heard all this, he believed he had made an error by introducing a non zero constant into GR. He realized that if the universe was expanding as many astronomers were coming to believe, then it wasn't necessary to have a non zero constant in GR anymore. It could be set to zero again, since objects in motion will stay in motion, and that will create a "stable" configuration in GR without any non zero constants.

He called the idea of a non zero constant his "greatest blunder", set it back to zero and embraced an expanding universe. That's pretty much how he left things until his death. Keep in mind that nobody at that time knew for sure just how fast the universe was expanding, they just ASSUMED it expanded, hence the redshift.

There's one small "problem" with a "doppler", or movement oriented explanation for "redshift". Nothing can travel than the speed of light according to GR theory. In theory then, nothing can "expand" faster than the twice the speed of light (1 C in opposite directions).

When the "expansion" proponents began to realize that an expansion explanation for redshift was insufficient to explain the amount of redshift observe, they started a "religion". They began to claim that it wasn't the objects that were moving, it was "space" that somehow magically expanded. Furthermore they failed to even physically define "space". Spacetime is defined in GR theory, but SPACE has no physical definition in GR theory. DISTANCE has a definition in GR, as do objects and "spacetime". Space isn't physically even defined by GR theory. It can't magically 'expand', and even a "non zero" constant wouldn't necessarily mean 'space' must be expanding. Furthermore no such thing EVER occurs in the lab, so there went any advantage it had in terms of empirical physics.

Now of course "tired light" theory never went away, it just wasn't the "popular interpretation" for a time. It's weakness for a time was the fact that no such plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, at least not yet. Technology has changed all that today however (and it turns out for quite some time actually). Plasma redshift has now been observed in the lab. What was once on a "prediction" and a "weakness" of tired light theories and many plasma cosmology theories which I prefer, has now turned into one it's 'greatest triumphs" in terms of pure empirical physics, and in terms of "validated predictions".

The importance of that observation in the lab is profound. No longer is it necessary to "believe" that the universe is accelerating, it's not even necessary to believe it is expanding at all. It's certainly not necessary to believe it is expanding faster than light speed! There goes the need for every BB theory every created. We could very well be living in a static universe as astronomers of 60-70 years ago once believed. Nothing is "certain" anymore, and in fact the tables have turned on expansion theories. The more LIKELY cause is simply "plasma redshift" since that process has now been documented in the lab.

Unlike you, my "lack of belief" in mainstream theory isn't based on ignorance of history, nor ignorance of theory theory, or ignorance to other theories that have existed in astronomy for the past 70 years. My position is based upon KNOWLEDGE whereas your position is based upon blind ignorance and "blind faith" in ONE idea you hardly even understand, only because some "scientists" told you a nice creation story.

Why is there movement in this still picture; Could it be the soul trying to override the brain

LifeToTheFullest! said:

Maybe we should put a spirit and a soul in the LHC and see what they're made of?

Click to expand...

And suppose they continue to find "new" particles?

Michael said:

And suppose they continue to find "new" particles?

Click to expand...

Then those things will change from being "supernatural" to just "natural".

CabVet said:

Then those things will change from being "supernatural" to just "natural".

Click to expand...

So effectively you're claiming that all proposed particles related to super-symmetry and quantum mechanics are "supernatural" creations?

Michael said:

So effectively you're claiming that all proposed particles related to super-symmetry and quantum mechanics are "supernatural" creations?

Click to expand...

No, only the ones related to "spirit" and "soul".

CabVet said:

No, only the ones related to "spirit" and "soul".

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite.....

Why JUST those specific ones? Keep in mind I've already provided some links to at least two mathematical models of "soul".

Michael said:

Ok, I'll bite.....

Why JUST those specific ones? Keep in mind I've already provided some links to at least two mathematical models of "soul".

Click to expand...

Because they are the first two that came to mind. Now, all you need to do is capture a soul and put it inside the LHC.

Michael said:

I would assume that your atheist icon puts you in the minority position. Furthermore you personally feel compelled to "evangelize the cause" on a "Christian" website no less. I'd say that puts you in a fairly unique category actually. By your logic it makes you a "slackjawed hillbilly" on the topic of God, simply because you're outside the consensus of the rest of humanity.

Click to expand...

Evangelize the cause? You still haven't really said what you think my position is.

Michael said:

And suppose they continue to find "new" particles?

Click to expand...

Well, what are you waiting for? Get on it.

Michael said:

I would assume that your atheist icon puts you in the minority position. Furthermore you personally feel compelled to "evangelize the cause" on a "Christian" website no less. I'd say that puts you in a fairly unique category actually. By your logic it makes you a "slackjawed hillbilly" on the topic of God, simply because you're outside the consensus of the rest of humanity.

Click to expand...

I do not think 'consensus' as you are using it here means what you intend it to mean. It certainly does not ensure that the majority is right, or the minority position is wrong.

Consensus is not unanimity - wiki
"Consensus seeks to improve solidarity in the long run. Accordingly it should not be confused with unanimity in the immediate situation which is often a symptom of groupthink. Studies of effective consensus process usually indicate a shunning of unanimity or "illusion of unanimity"[2] that does not hold up as a group comes under real world pressure (when dissent reappears). Cory Doctorow, Ralph Nader and other proponents of deliberative democracy or judicial-like methods view the explicit dissent as a symbol of strength. Lawrence Lessig considers it a major strength of working projects like public wikis[3]. Schutt[4], Starhawk[5] and other practitioners of direct action focus on the hazards of apparent agreement followed by action in which group splits become dangerously obvious.

Whatever one thinks of the merits of seeking a unanimous agreement in a particular situation, in general unanimous, or apparently unanimous, decisions have numerous drawbacks.[citation needed] They may be symptoms of a systemic bias, a rigged process (where an agenda is not published in advance or changed when it becomes clear who is present to consent), fear of speaking one's mind, a lack of creativity (to suggest alternatives) or even a lack of courage (to go further along the same road to a more extreme solution that would not achieve unanimous consent).

Most robust models of consensus exclude uniformly unanimous decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns. Some state clearly that unanimity is not consensus but rather evidence of intimidation, lack of imagination, lack of courage, failure to include all voices, or deliberate exclusion of the contrary views."

Davian said:

I do not think 'consensus' as you are using it here means what you intend it to mean. It certainly does not ensure that the majority is right, or the minority position is wrong.

Click to expand...

That was actually the whole point of my statement to Guy1. His logic was flawed from beginning to end. He made two invalid assumptions actually.

He first assumed that a majority position is NECESSARILY correct, or "more likely" to be correct. He also erroneously assumed that a dissenting opinion is necessarily based upon a lack of education on the topic of dissent. Neither of these ASSUMPTIONS is valid. The first assumption is simply a combo fallacy, specifically an appeal to popularity fallacy combined with an appeal to authority fallacy. The second false assumption was apparently just blind bigotry on his part.

It's hard to have a meaningful conversation on the importance of the observation of plasma redshift in the lab to cosmology with someone that hasn't a clue about the implication of such an observation on VARIOUS cosmology theories. Evidently without even understanding the MAINSTREAM position, let alone PC/EU theory, he's made up his mind who's "correct", and he's already hurling personal insults that have no place in honest scientific debate. The worst part is that his entire belief system is based in pure ignorance of the topic and blind faith in anything labeled "science".