July 20th, 2023. Does Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity Suggest That There Is an Afterlife?

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,480
10,933
113
Low Earth Orbit
It’s not the contrary evidence that counts the most, what matters is the evidence in favour of the proposition, and as far as I‘ve ever been able to discover, there isn’t any that can withstand even the most minimal sceptical scrutiny. But if you want contrary evidence, Socratus’ post about Brian Cox above is a good start. That argument is essentially that there’s no known way an intelligence or awareness can exist without a physical substrate and as far as we know physics does not allow the possibility.
If you believe that you exist in the afterlife with with animal attributes like emotions, touch, taste, temperature, pain when youre a spiritual being free from of that form.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
If you believe that you exist in the afterlife with with animal attributes like emotions, touch, taste, temperature, pain when youre a spiritual being free from of that form.
I don’t believe there’s an afterlife of any kind, the evidence and arguments I’ve seen for it are insufficient to justify accepting it as true.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Need help out of the corner? You can wash paint off your shoes but the tracks remain.
I'm not in a corner, you're grasping at straws and not thinking clearly. Belief, or lack of it, is a conclusion from evidence, or lack of it, not evidence itself.
 
Last edited:

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Yeah, perhaps I should have qualified that a little more carefully: “Belief, when it’s not delusional wishful thinking…”
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,302
6,913
113
Washington DC
Yeah, perhaps I should have qualified that a little more carefully: “Belief, when it’s not delusional wishful thinking…”
Attempts to twist words aside, "belief" in the sense you mean, is simply "satisfaction that the evidence presented supports the explanation better than any alternative." Obviously contrary evidence, should it be found, will reduce that satisfaction. People who are afraid of having their mental security blankets taken away insist on stupid fallacies like argumentum ad populam, argument from antiquity, and word games.

I'm utterly baffled by the minds of people who say "Whut wuz good enuf fer mah Daddy is good enuf fer me!" On the internet.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,480
10,933
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'm not in a corner, you're grasping at straws and not thinking clearly. Belief, or lack of it, is a conclusion from evidence, or lack of it, not evidence itself.
Am I?

Do you believe 0 is divisible and everything came from nothing?

Thats the biggest faerie tale going and its taught to the PhD level and lives wasted computing nothing.

If beliving zero is divisible gives you comfort when the alternative doesn’t....
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Yes.
Do you believe 0 is divisible
0 divided by anything is 0.
and everything came from nothing?
There are cogent reasons for thinking it might be so, see Laurence M. Krause’s book “A Universe From Nothing,” but the book has been cogently criticized too. The jury’s still out on that one.
Thats the biggest faerie tale going and its taught to the PhD level and lives wasted computing nothing.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about there, that is not the physicists’ definitive conclusion.
If beliving zero is divisible gives you comfort when the alternative doesn’t....
I don’t believe things because they give me comfort, that’s one of the dumber reasons for believing something.
 

socratus

socratus
Dec 10, 2008
1,119
17
38
Israel
www.worldnpa.org
The collapse (death) of the Ψ-wave Schrödinger function forces physicists to use
the mathematical "renormalization method" to revive the situation. . . .
Isn't the "method of renormalization" similar to the "method of reincarnation"? . . .
Mathematicians use the "method of renormalization". . .
Religious believers use the "method of reincarnation". . .
Both believe . . . death is not the end of existence
 

Attachments

  • caterpillar-butterfly.jpg
    caterpillar-butterfly.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 0

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Isn't the "method of renormalization" similar to the "method of reincarnation"?
Nope, don’t see that connection at all. The former is a mathematical technique for dealing with infinities in the equations of quantum field theory, the latter is a belief in some religious systems, but it’s not universal.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,480
10,933
113
Low Earth Orbit
Yes.

0 divided by anything is 0.

There are cogent reasons for thinking it might be so, see Laurence M. Krause’s book “A Universe From Nothing,” but the book has been cogently criticized too. The jury’s still out on that one.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about there, that is not the physicists’ definitive conclusion.

I don’t believe things because they give me comfort, that’s one of the dumber reasons for believing something.
The Big Bang Theory is 0÷0. Its a ridiculous and impossible theory.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,480
10,933
113
Low Earth Orbit
What was there for physics prior to the Universe? 0

Where in physics is 0 divisible?

Retrograde analysis should pack it all back into 0. Does it?
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
You think you know enough to reject the Big Bang theory, you figure it out. I don't propose to offer graduate-level physics courses here.