Existence: What is the point?

Yes, called the big bang theory!

 

With a slight twist. Hindus believe that the Universe goes thru cycles of birth, growth, shrinkage, death & rebirth. Your post sounds like that. It's interesting.

 

I think there are a number of theories that have interest among theoretical physicists interested in cosmology that center on the idea that our big bang and universe is only part of a whole that is eternal.

There could have been (and could be) other big bangs going off simultaneously, each with their own set of physics, but vastly separated. Or, maybe they can bump into each other - but searches for stuff that might look like a collision has failed and is so far at an end.

It's pretty hard to gather evidence concerning whether there are other universes around - we can't even see more than a tiny fraction of our own universe. Plus, what would be the evidence that the "total whole" of multiple universes is or is not eternal?


We may be in an eternal multiverse.

Whether or not that is true, one could propose that there is an eternal god.

One might even propose that one of those depends on the other, though I don't know of any evidence of that.

None of the 20 or so ideas from physics implies there is or isn't a supernatural.

 

Science is an incredible system of investigation. But, possibly due to early conflicts with religious dogmas that were painful & dangerous to those affected, science has systematically avoided researching questions beyond the physical realms. Yet, most of us admit, life is filled with non-physical aspects that are of astounding import. What we attribute to spiritual forces have a direct and often determining impact on life changing decisions we make. Science has chosen to remain silent on these important aspects of our reality. Yet, we're already in a time when the physical & spiritual cannot explain our experience separately. We must find ways to combine them in our research, for they both play such important roles in our lives. Neither alone can ever succeed in representing our reality. Science must expand its willingness to question & explore those regions formerly regarded as taboo. Otherwise, it will NEVER be capable of explaining our living reality.

 

It's worse than that!!

Scientific method is explicitly designed such that questions about the supernatural can not be explored.

Here's the problem. Scientific method has to assume we don't know all the possible factors in the universe that might affect a test. For example, Newton didn't know that his theory of motion doesn't work at speeds that start approaching light speed. Since science doesn't know all the parameters, science can never prove something to be true.

So, scientific method was designed to depend on proving ideas to be false - eliminating false ideas as fast as possible. There are several important methods used for keeping false ideas from persisting. Requiring independent duplication of experiments is an example.

The problem is that the supernatural can never be prove false. We just don't know if the spirit world cooperated with our tests. And, for SURE we don't know all the possible parameters.

So, if you let in the spirit world, scientific method suddenly can't prove ideas to be true and it can't prove ideas to be false! Scientific method becomes garbage.

So, science has to exclude EVERYTHING from the supernatural.

Mixing science and the supernatural is ALWAYS garbage.

 

Interesting, thoughtful, rational, nicely presented post. But like so many "rational, thoughtfully presented" scientific hypotheses of the past, reality may be far more complex & variable & unpredictable than assumed. You may or may not be right that it's impossible for science to "prove" anything spiritual is true or false. But the purpose of science is not ONLY to prove something, but to study it, learn about it, and help us understand the topic of research more comprehensively. Science is masterful at doing that, even in areas where "proof" remains allusive. I can't scientifically "prove" that consciousness continues unabated after our physical death, but there is a mountain of convincing evidence out there from valid, hard-core scientific studies, that an afterlife is a fact. There is no generally recognized scientific "proof" out there that extraterrestrial life forms have visited Earth, or are currently doing so, but there is a voluminous collection of evidence from all around the world, that ETs have visited & are now here. The recently discovered non-human skeletons called the Nazca Mummies, are a prime example.

One thing about science that I personally love, but many opponents to science frequently cite as a major flaw, is that seldom to never comes up with a final black or white answer to any topic of interest. They complain that whatever science says about a topic now, is subject to change at any time, making scientific proclamations undependable. I disagree. I see that as one of science's greatest assets. For me, finding a final truth about anything precludes the possibility of finding out more on that topic. I love the fact that science is constantly upgrading its understanding in every field of study. Every new discovery broadens our composite understanding of our reality around us, and the scientific method makes that process perpetual.

 

You're still talking about science proving something to be true.

But, science can NEVER prove something to be true.

Science works by eliminating the ideas that are shown to be false. Ideas that stand up to extensive efforts to prove them false rise in importance. So, it's a requirement that a theory is "falsifiable" - that we have the ability to develop evidence that the theory is false.

This isn't just an issue of the supernatural. Recently there was the news about Higgs fields from CERN. Until then, the work of Higgs was part of "theoretical physics" - a branch that includes string theory, etc., that is NOT part of experimental science - which is what is usually meant by "science". This exclusion was based on the fact that physicists didn't have any way of actually testing to see if Higgs fields exist. The big news was that the new facility of CERN had developed that capability, thus allowing attempts to falsify the ideas of Higgs. So, now Higgs fields are accepted as part of science, however like everything else in science there could be further testing that would supercede or invalidate this theory. The point here is that it's not just the supernatural that is excluded on the grounds that we don't have an ability to test.

I've never heard of there being evidence of an afterlife that could be considered scientific.

 

1. No, I'm not. I said in my post, science is MORE than simply a method of proving something true or false. It's a system of observation & experiment that opens all of reality to scrutiny in ways that broaden our understanding. The value of science isn't in "proving" anything, but in its relentless, tireless & effective methods of examining all reality.
2. I recommend you examine these research publications: Life At Death - A Scientific Investigation of the Near Death Experience, by Dr. Kenneth Ring; & Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation, by Dr. Michael Sabom. After the results of Dr Ring's research convinced HIM of the reality of an afterlife, he founded the renowned organization called the International Association For Near Death Studies (IANDS), where you can find thousands of individuals who have actually died and lived to tell you about it.

 

Cyclicality is very prevalent in the universe.

 

I said you were still talking about proving something to be true - which is something you doubted in your post.

The method science uses for examining all reality is scientific method. And, that method is founded on rules of evidence and procedure. It's based on forming hypotheses and then attempting to prove them false through experimentation.

If there is no way to prove something to be false, then scientific method just isn't applicable. In that case, you are using something else - just not science.

Lots of people claim their work is science. That doesn't mean anything.

I don't doubt that people who have had near death experiences are telling the truth to the best of their ability.

Again, these collections of experience do not satisfy scientific method. There is nothing about them which would allow science a way of proving the afterlife to be false. That's why we got into the whole "proof" thing.

If someone collected even larger numbers of near death encounters where the individual reported no such experience, that wouldn't indicate there is no afterlife.

Not only that (though the above is sufficient), there ARE other explanations for near death experiences. As I've said before, brains are capable of producing dreams during times we aren't even conscious. It's not surprising to me AT ALL that a brain would concoct something that matches the person's religion when that brain is dying and when it is receiving garbage input from sensory organs and nervous systems that are also dying.

 

Studying the human brain has serious issues of ethics and difficulties in isolating variables.

For example, one can not give repeated near death experiences to someone, then kill their memory center (so they don't know squat about their religion) and then give them more repeated near death experiences. Then, have multiple unassociated institutions do this on numbers of randomly selected humans to find out whether near death experiences are tied to prior religious belief.

 

The really powerful thing about Near Death Experiences is that many of them can be verified for accuracy after they happen. Many NDErs report after resuscitation, exact, precise descriptions of people, discussions, activities, etc, that they witnessed inside the hospital but outside the body while it was dead & doctors were busy trying desperately to revive it. One heart attack victim described an old, weathered tennis shoe located on a roof ledge several stories above her hospital room, that she saw up close while her spirit was flying from her body, thru the hospital ceilings & walls on its way into the sky above. An interested social worker, doubting the story, had it checked by hospital staff, who found the shoe & brought it back to the lady who had died. Other stories of NDEs happening during surgeries, tell of the deceased leaving their bodies, floating above them inside the surgery room & observing the activities of the doctors & nurses trying to revive them. Some even quoted some of the surgical worker's remarks verbatim, while their body was medically dead. Other NDErs left their bodies & the surgical rooms & went into the waiting areas where they watched & listened to the discussions of their own relatives who were waiting for the surgery to end. The NDEr accurately described the clothing their relatives were wearing & quoted verbatim parts of the discussions they heard while out of body. These are not "proofs" of afterlife, but they are pretty hard to explain otherwise. The process cited by your post above doesn't explain any of these. But a conscious soul leaving a dead physical body & experiencing these things described does explain it nicely. If you have alternative theories that can do the same, I'm seriously interested in hearing them.

 

All unnecessary. Near Death Experiences occur daily around the world. There's already a massive source of potential cases for scientific study. Just find better ways to find these newest Near Death Experiencers after they die. NDEs have had sufficient scrutiny already to establish that the experiences themselves don't follow the dogmas of ANY established religions, or the experiencer's personal religious beliefs. Lastly, it's worth noting that the term "Near Death Experience" was coined in 1974, by Dr. Raymond Moody, the first to study them & write a book about his study. He was uneasy calling them "death experiences" because the ones he first studied lasted only a very few moments. So, he compromised & called them "Near Death Experiences." However, since his first studies, other studies have broadened & deepened the investigations, and there are now NDEs that have lasted for hours, and at least one lasting almost a full day. It is now clear that these cases are all experiences involving a full death experience, so I like to refer to them as "short term death experiences or STDEs. But the term NDE has been around for several decades, has become well known & familiar to the general public, & will doubtless continue to be the term of choice in spite of its inaccuracies.

 

I'm fine with you believing what you want to believe.

The point I'm making is that is entirely outside of science - and not just because it is anecdotal.

A concern I have here is that there is a strong human desire to have answers. You cite the fact that I don't have answers for your sketches as evidence of an afterlife being likely. I don't believe that is a valid form of logic. There are lots of things that NO human has answers for, and there are FAR more things for which I don't have answers.

Also, I don't believe it serves anyone's purpose to accept "god did it" as the answer for all things that can't be immediately explained. Humans just aren't that good.


Again, I am fine with you having your interpretation of these events.

My only point is that conclusions drawn from those events are on the religious side of the divide between religion and science.

 

Yes, Moody believes in the paranormal.

His methods are not the methods of science.

Again, I'm fine with people having their religious beliefs. I just think it is good to see where the line is between science and religion.

When we gloss over that line, we start seeing conflict that just isn't necessary, as the source of that conflict tends to come from factors such as fundamental assumptions and methodology. When people depend on different sets of fundamental assumptions and use different methodology, the results are bound to differ.

 

First, I agree with you that we all have the right to believe what we choose. I was simply trying to demonstrate that there's compelling evidence to support the idea that personal consciousness continues unabated after one's physical body dies. That evidence doesn't prove life after life, but it is a strong argument against simply assuming there's NOT life after life. It's true that religion has been the prime advocate for life after life existing, with science either neutral on the subject, or in denial on occasion. Unfortunately, the answers to the question lies in an area historically shared by religion & science, & that continues to be a problem for many who want answers. For me personally, I don't see it as a "religious" question, but rather, a "spiritual" one. I see the "spiritual" world as belonging to what science terms a parallel reality--a combination of different dimensions forming a distinct reality quite different from our own, & governed by scientific laws vastly different as well. To me, it's just a more comprehensive view of reality than is commonly adhered to by most humans. Quantum physicists say there are at least 11 different dimensions associated with our own familiar reality. I say the spirit world is simply one (or more) of those dimensions. Studying them has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with seeking understanding for ALL THAT WE ARE, rather than settling for just what we can touch. I suspect that what science calls reality is incomplete. We are more than science sees us as. Our reality is connected to many parallel realities that we don't commonly see. But our reality is in ways beyond our understanding, dependent upon those that are invisible. I think our "souls" come from one or more of those alternate realities, and return there after our physical bodies die. I'm NOT religious. But I am highly cognizant of the spiritual side of our lives. Religion & spirituality have nothing in common, in spite of claims to the contrary. To me, spirit is living, conscious energy. And that energy has the ability to be in more parallel realities than our physical bodies do. But we here share that spiritual energy. In fact, at our core, we ARE that energy, only visiting a foreign & limited reality for a brief time as a method of self-education. We learn & grow from our lives here in the physical realities, then take everything we experience here back with us to the spiritual reality as extremely detailed memories, from which we learn everything we can over a period of time, then return to the physical world for a new life to add to our experience. It's a beautiful, complex system spanning many dimensions & parallel worlds. Because they are so intimately linked together, & so co-dependent on one another, and because we as spiritual beings have the ability to move from one into another & thrive for awhile there, to learn, I see the study of this intricate web of existences as a field of scientific scrutiny--not religious.

 

>
Existence: What is the point?

To Become More.

 

If someone says that science can prove there is no "eternal life" or "god" or whatever, they are simply wrong. Science is not a methodology that can address the supernatural. Also, the stuff you pose as evidence isn't considered evidence by science. That doesn't mean anyone denies what those who experience NDE say. It's just a limitation imposed by science.

I don't know of a way in which this area of supernatural could possibly be shared with science.

Science absolutely does not term our observable universe a "parallel reality".

If you have a "parallel reality" it came from you, not science.

I think you are talking about string theory. And, let's remember that string theory is something that lives in Theoretical Physics, which is OUTSIDE of what is normally called "science" - scientific method. The difference is that science requires verification by rules of testing and observation. Theoretical Physics does not require any physical testing. The "Higgs boson" is an example from theoretical physics. That idea was pure math extending known particle physics in a specific way that physicists had no way of testing. The collider at CERN was built to test that idea, because it looked like it might well be real. Once tested and found to actually exist, there was a celebration of bringing that idea into the realm of science.

I say this to note that it is not just religion that is outside of science.

I have absolutely no objection to you believing that, obviously.

I'm just interested in noting that it is separate from science - the assumptions are different, requirements of evidence are different, methods of analysis and decision making are different.

In my view, a better understanding of the definition of science can help reduce the amount of conflict and number of spurious charges that result from people inappropriately mixing science and the supernatural.

As we've seen, people can have spiritual beliefs and be leaders of science, too. However, these people have to keep the rules separate - exclusively using science when contributing in science. And, I think it's also better to avoid science when working in religion. Since science is so different, mixing terminology, results, evidence, methods, assumptions, etc., is just not going to work. The result can not be science. And, I think it probably leads to BS religion, too.

 

There is a blend of 'faith and science!' in everyone. There are things we believe because of personally verified experience. Other things we believe because they work, and others have done the homework and research to make it happen. Still other things we believe from a combination of plausibility, Indoctrination, inclination, or wishful thinking.

Nobody is 'all science!', or 'all faith!'

There is no conflict between science and belief. Both are essential AND present in everyone. It is those who have made a religion out of science, or a science out of religion, that present a conflict.

“Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~Albert Einstein

 

First, I respect your views & your post points. I find them interesting and challenging to think about. Thanks.
1. I believe quantum physicists generally have concluded that our universe does represent one of many parallel universes, and I've heard them state unequivocally, that our universe CAN'T exist without parallel universes interconnecting with ours. Each of those universes would represent a different "reality," and would work under different scientific laws than ours.
2. I think scientists need to re-think their definition of science. As it stands now, science limits itself to the study (and acceptance) of that which can somehow be measured. Plus, those measurements must be capable of being replicated over & over again. But much of our lives & our shared reality, like love, beauty, a wide spectrum of emotion, feelings, preferences, etc, cannot be "measured" scientifically, yet are crucial to us, and our lives & perhaps life itself would collapse without them. We can't simply disregard these important aspects of our reality. They & the spiritual things I describe in my prior posts are all part of our "natural" world. They are NOT "supernatural." Our science has used the excuse that these aspects of our normal reality are "supernatural" & therefore out of their jurisdiction for far too long. Science needs to bite the bullet & begin studying these crucial parts of our shared reality as a part of our "natural" environment. There's much more to our multi-dimensional reality than we're currently familiar with. We need to learn more & science can be an important tool in that process.

 

Once again, this is not from scientific method. Anyone can come up with ideas like this. There are people who do think about it seriously - those who know advanced math and the known laws and limitations of physics to postulate. But, there is no testing. This is theoretical physics, where they only dream of a day when their ideas could be brought into the realm of experimental science.

I would suggest hesitating to use the term "quantum". It doesn't make the kind of differentiation that you imply.

Nobody who knows science thinks it works that way.

Science deconstructs to have NOTHING to add to religion if you decide to ignore testing, allow assumptions of god as a foundation, etc.

Like math, it is a specific tool. Unlike in science, one can prove truth in math. However, you can't change math to address your religion, and you can't change science to be able to prove truth, either.

Also, you can't change religion in order to allow it to figure out the physical mechanisms of our universe.

There are sound reasons for these limitations.

 

There is one thing for certain:

'Science!', or more exactly 'human beings who wrap themselves in a Mantle of Science!', have NOTHING to say, about the OP. They can philosophize, speculate, or pontificate all they want, but their opinions are no more valid than the town drunk's.

The mysteries of the universe..
Origins
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

These are The Big Ones: How, Why, What, & When.
They are questions of matter, purpose, law, & time.
HOW did i (and everybody else) get here?
WHY are we here? Is there a purpose to our existence?
WHAT do we do? Are there rules for our existence?
WHEN we die, what happens? Is there a soul?

No amount of 'scientific!' posturing will answer these questions. Without a religio/philosophical perspective, and RESPECT for the spiritual side of man, the natural man stumbles along, blind to the Real World, living a fantasy.

He grasps at air, searching for the elephant, then declares,
'I felt no elephant, therefore it does not exist!'

One can forget the meaninglessness of his own existence by occupying himself with scientific experiments of dubious import. Countless scientists and scholars spend their lives in the search of truths that are irrelevant to them. John Silber

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~Albert Einstein

 

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, but arriving at different conclusions. Your definition of science limits it to what can be proven or disproved. I am saying that science is more adaptable & can be used to explore areas where proof is illusive. You say both religion & science are powerful tools in their respective specialties, and I agree. But our reality is far more complex than either of them admit. I'm simply asking, how do we explore those aspects of our reality to become more fully informed? You disqualify science, which I think offers great potential. You say those studies are closer to religion, but I feel religion is too committed to unsubstantiated dogmas & disinterested in the pursuit of truth or knowledge that contradicts its chosen dogmas. So, what's left?

 

In the natural sciences, proof of truth isn't just elusive - it doesn't exist. There is a strong reason for that => humans just don't know all the factors. So, designing tests to prove truth isn't possible. Proof in math is possible when the system is fully defined - we know ALL the rules of addition of integers, for example. Physicists do NOT know all the rules of the universe. (Think how boring physics would be if all the rules were known!)

For example, Newton didn't know about the effects of mass and of approaching light speed. So, GPS mapping can't depend on Newton's equations, because our satellites travel fast and they are farther away from the center of earth. Like Newton, physics of today can have holes that prevent us from suggesting that any discovery is proven to be true. Science has the humility to recognize that humans don't know it all. Without knowing it all, it's not legitimate to claim "truth".

What science has is theories (the closest science has to truth) that have been tested enough and have correctly predicted outcomes of other experiments enough that they have earned significant confidence. So, the theory of evolution is one of the foundations of all modern biology as it is a powerful tool that has been so tested that it would be ridiculous to doubt it - which isn't proof. On the other hand, we have physics that need to be applied within a specific range. For example, the theory of relativity comes in two parts - one which says nothing can go faster than light speed in a vacuum, and the other saying that faster than light speed is not only fine, but is happening right now in the vacuum of space. The catch is you have to know when to use the two.

Unfortunately, I agree that humans don't have a way to do what you suggest. It would be great.

Science can't help you out with that - just like religion isn't shaped in a way that helps unfold how our physical universe works.

A major percent of us have some form of religion and some amount of science. We just need to know the limits and choose the right tool.

My own view is that we need a little more science class in order for us all to know how to avoid conflict by knowing which tool to use.

 

Yes, nobody is all science or all faith.

However, that does not imply that there is a way to mix these two entirely different ways of exploring our reality when addressing any idea.

You quote Einstein, but Einstein very carefully isolated his ideas concerning science from his ideas concerning religion when he was using the tools of science.

So, while there doesn't need to be conflict between religion and science, it does take some work on the part of the individual to not mix the two.

Mixing the methods of science and religion gets garbage. In fact, science that has had religion added is garbage by definition.