[Simulated (OP)]

Yeah, still think reincarnation is real. I don't know why, but I do

[Karen W.]

yeah i dont think we're the ONLY life form in existance at this moment we humans are probably not even the main life form we only think that because we dont know of any other life forms thats how self absorbed we are! so im nearly positive theres another life form somewhere in existance that hasnt shown itself to us either out of fear or just simply not knowing about us

yep
I agree!

Hi Ben I am a new Life form nice to see you!

[benep]

yeah i dont think we're the ONLY life form in existance at this moment we humans are probably not even the main life form we only think that because we dont know of any other life forms thats how self absorbed we are! so im nearly positive theres another life form somewhere in existance that hasnt shown itself to us either out of fear or just simply not knowing about us

yep
I agree!

Hi Ben I am a new Life form nice to see you!

lol hi karen nice to see you too what is your life form called?

[benep]

Yeah, still think reincarnation is real. I don't know why, but I do

yeah i had a pretty strong belif in that too but i just started thinking of others and stuck to the one i believe in now

[johnbrandy]

Re:Quantumorigin7. Consciousness as hologram is a genuinely deep concept. I did a quick, cursory web search. A reasonable understanding of this subject, as it relates to modeling consciousness requires serious study. I wish you would explore your understanding of this subject further; how the holographic model of the brain can explain consciousness, and how that understanding relates with and can project itself into the universe. I am far from sure if the concept of higher dimensions figures in such understanding. If the holographic model of the mind provides a better understanding of consciousness, and this model parallels our understanding of the universe, I would suggest that, of necessity, the holographic mind must lie in the same dimensional field as the universe, otherwise the respective, and alleged congruency would appear to be incorrect. Seemingly, we have a ways to go before science can establish the validity of the holographic model of the mind, and how it might accord with the "conscious" universe. I am not suggesting that my post can hope to compare in any way with this elegant, and internally coherent perspective. In my view, topics of this kind are offered to generate thoughtful, interesting, and stimulating ideas. What is great about this practice is that it can stretch the thinking process and assist in training the mind. Ideas engendered herein can find fruitful applications in other domains of thinking. Since reincarnation cannot be proved, I would suggest that one of our task is to "track" the origin of this idea. Historically, this might be impossible, yet it is possible to intelligently speculate as to why cultures or individuals "created" the need to transcend death, in the form of reincarnation. I am suggesting that the need to create reincarnation is exactly the same need that led to a belief in the afterlife, if not God and religion. If there is a God, a perfect deity, why are there so many distinct religions. Why did a perfect God allow this to happen? Don't blame mankind. The common view is that God started the whole process. A perfect God would have planned better; perfectly. Virtually every culture intuited a divinity, and created religions, customs, and practices to acknowledge as much. Therefore I am not questioning the existence of a divine "principle" operating in the world. If anything, I am questing the interpretation of this principle. The similarities of religions, derived completely independently, persuade me, among other facts, that there is indeed a cosmic essence, mediating a influence within distinct cultures. Unfortunately, conditioned thinking, and societal pressures, customs, and beliefs, restrict understanding. As to why this happened, is the real mystery. I cannot believe it happened by design. At the same time I believe, as impossible as it appears, enlightened thinking is possible.     

[_Stefan_]

Considering this is a science forum, perhaps discussions should be based upon evidence and scientific research into the topic, rather than pure belief and conjecture.

[Quantumorigin7]

That's a bit hard to do because it's one of those things scientists would rather not really spend all their time on. The cure for cancer is the most important.

[Karen W.]

yeah i dont think we're the ONLY life form in existance at this moment we humans are probably not even the main life form we only think that because we dont know of any other life forms thats how self absorbed we are! so im nearly positive theres another life form somewhere in existance that hasnt shown itself to us either out of fear or just simply not knowing about us

yep
I agree!

Hi Ben I am a new Life form nice to see you!

lol hi karen nice to see you too what is your life form called?

Well I don't rightly know young man. but I am one of a kind thats for sure! They broke the mold when they made me!

[johnbrandy]

Re: Stefan, the topic, reincarnation, and this discussion, of which you are a party to, fall far from the tree of scientific evidence. There is no solid scientific evidence for reincarnation. There may be analogies, grounded in established scientific understanding, that constitute theories or reasonable speculation, as to the viability of reincarnation. How can anyone explore the potential validity of reincarnation from a scientific perspective, without viewing it in the context from which it originated; namely religion, most notably, the Hindu religion? Though, I did not previously mention this particular religion, I assumed this progenitor of reincarnation is widely accepted. Since scientific explanations  of this topic are difficult, if not impossible to "demonstrate", I felt the need to entertain some relevant non-scientific ideas and possible explanations. A science forum must and does allow for an expanded view, especially with respect to subjects of this type. Science does not operate in a vacuum. Topics, such as reincarnation, are not limited to the exclusive purview of pure science, obviously. If that were the case, reincarnation would be an established scientific principle, idea, or concept, offered for discussion. If other disciplines, or ways of thinking, proffers a more reasonable explanations than science provides, relative to the ideas raised herein, why ignore or debunk them, in an offhanded fashion? If other disciplines, or ways of thinking can offer a better, or at least a reasonable explanation, why ignore, or discount them, unless one has a valid reason for doing so. In point of fact, it is unscientific to disregard logical and intelligent; explanations or reasonable speculation, simple because such opinions do not accord with established scientific understanding. I submit the above for your consideration.   

[_Stefan_]

John, I understand your perspective. My point was that belief and conjecture without evidence does not belong on a science forum. You may speculate and formulate hypotheses, but until irrefutable supporting evidence is found, you cannot consider any such speculation or "explanations" logical or rational; you do not even have evidence of the phenomenon in the first place! What is there to "explain"?

Which discipline can be considered logical/rational/reasonable if it does not base itself on evidence? How is the idea of an afterlife logical or rational? Its superstitious origins do not help your argument.

I don't think all ideas should be rejected offhand, but all ideas should be subjected to critique, and it really is easy to "debunk" the irrational idea of an afterlife. Try and find tangible evidence for it, sure, but don't fall into the trap of accepting and believing just because it feels good.

Also, remember Occam's Razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

There is a quote attributed to Mark Twain in relation to death and an afterlife:

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

[Quantumorigin7]

I heard that one a million times and he's wrong, he wasn't dead for billions of years. So far, from what I heard, the universe is possibly infinite, so he could have stated "I was dead for sometime in infinity" Hard to grasp, how can you measure infinity when all we know is finite? If the universe is infinite, we will never find out what's on the other side.

[_Stefan_]

The Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years ago. The age of the known universe is NOT infinite. Twain's quote still stands.

If the word "dead" is also your problem, define death or non-living as the absence of biological processes of an object. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

[Quantumorigin7]

I knew the 13.7 billion years thing, trust me, but I also considered infinity, which seems like a fairy tale, but is something to really get your mind turning. If the universe were infinite, then the universe was always there, it can't just begin and then last forever. Anything with a beginning will have an end. Matter was created in the beginning and will be destroyed in the end. It may change form over time, but not for infinity. That's my ignorant belief from what I've read and heard, my conclusion, so to speak.

We never reached other universes, other dimensions, we never really had actual LAW tell us that there are other universes, it's just theory. And if it is just theory, this universe IS the universe, so then the question once again arises, what started this universe for certain?

[_Stefan_]

The universe is _not_ infinite in age, since time was zero at the big bang.

It is fallacious to assume that all things which have been created will be destroyed. What is your basis for this assumption? What is the point of coming to that ignorant conclusion?

You are using the scientific terms incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%28disambiguation%29#Science_and_mathematics

See also: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html Interesting read.

[Quantumorigin7]

If the earliest universe was void of matter, then matter was created.

[_Stefan_]

No one is disputing that.

Your conclusion from the statement "matter was created in the beginning", was "matter will be destroyed in the end". This is what I am questioning. What is the "end"? What do you mean by "destroyed"?

[johnbrandy]

Re: Stefan, the theory, that "the universe is not infinite in age", because according to another theory, or aspect of that theory; "time was zero at the Big Bang", is demonstratively false, unprovable and falls outside of human cognizance. The weakest theory is a theory predicated upon, or extrapolated from another theory. Besides, the theory of the Big Bang, is a theory that endeavors to explain the origin of the 'known' universe. There is nothing in the theory of the Big Bang that questions, or logically refutes; another unthinkable thought, "something before anything, creating everything out of nothing". Is this not what this theory forces upon the intellect to entertain, in spite of the impossibility of cognitively framing this thought. The Big Bang theory has both external and internal coherency. Computer models and astronomical observation have established the current positions, and movements of the known galaxies, strongly indicating a common starting point and place in time. When coupled with studies of background radiation, and other observations to numerous to mention, the plausibility of this theory is well established. The Big Bang is currently the best theory for explaining the origin and evolution of the known universe. Not fact, and certainly not the bases for the assertion; "the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big Bang", and similar theories. On a separate note, to refer to someones opinion as being ignorant, is arrogant, unenlightened, and self-serving, and assumes an insight into the knowledge and motives of the "speaker", in question. There is a place for such comments, I do not perceive that evidence herein.       

[johnbrandy]

Re: Stefan, You might ask me what I mean by "demonstratively false , unprovable, and falls outside of human cognizance". The proposition that "the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big bang", is inferred from concepts that were logically derived from the Big Bang theory. Knowledge and understanding derived or deduced from optical and electronic instrumentation; "leading to" the Big Bang theory, is fundamentally distinct from theories or suppositions derived exclusively from cogitation or inference. The fallacy in your statement is illustrated by these facts; the theory of the origin of time, and your statement, "the universe is not infinite in age", is derived from postulates, (the postulate, the Big Bang actually occurred, the postulate time started at the occurrence of the Big Bang, and the postulate, the age of the universe is a measure determined by the alleged "time" the big bang occurred). These assumptions are conceptual, and are therefore not derived from observational knowledge or understanding. One theory supporting, or generated from another; is therefore demonstratively false. I do not question the usefulness, or elegance of this theory, even so, it is unprovable, and as such, statements like, "the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big Bang", can not be scientifically evaluated. I also stated, "that the universe is not infinite in age, since time was zero at the Big Bang", falls outside of human cognizance. Why is this significant? Clearly, through scientific investigation, we have discovered many facts that previously fell outside of our understanding and ability to cognize. The list is endless; genetics, animal behavior, brain activity , quantum physics, viral replication, migrating bird flight, photoluminescence, and so on. The unthinkable was made manifest through investigation, experimentation, and discovery. In the present case, the Big Bang theory, and theories based on it, we are attempting the logical opposite; generating, not only theories based on theories, but trying to create theories upon that which we cannot cognize; the origin of the universe, and the beginning of time. These are unthinkable thoughts, with no scientific footing, and fall outside of any field of proof.

[_Stefan_]

John:

Please read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe


The way you have defined "Theory" is such that no theory would have any accurate explanatory power. The accuracy of a theory depends on the strength of the assumptions it makes. A theory is not disqualified just because it makes assumptions.

There is sound scientific evidence for the finite age of the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#fluctuations

You keep repeating that the finite age theory is demonstrably false. Where is the evidence that the universe's age is NOT finite?
By your logic however, evidence which indicates infinite age should also be discarded, because I doubt very much that any human being can truly comprehend infinity.

Since when are there "unthinkable thoughts? Are you aware of *imagination*? Science only puts limits on what we can accept as reality. Imagination is much freer.

"Something from nothing" addressed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw

You are not using the words: "theory" and "fact" correctly. Thankfully, Wikipedia can help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_and_fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science


I have not called you ignorant, although that is certainly how you have presented yourself. If you had read properly you would have seen that the poster who's conclusion I did call ignorant, had actually called his own conclusion ignorant, prior to my comment. You don't seem to be very good at "[perceiving] the evidence herein".

Further, I do not mean "ignorant" as an insult, though I couldn't care less if you understood it as such. I merely made an observation. Would you like a definition for this too?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant
"2.   lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics." 

If it is arrogant to make observations, think critically and follow the evidence, then your standards are extremely low.

I suggest that you at least try to use and understand key terms and definitions, and to base your arguments on evidence. Perhaps then a proper discussion can ensue.

[OldDragon]

Apart from any nutrients out bodies return to the earth, I believe that we live on through our genes and the way we might influence our children and, in turn, their children, and so on through the generations.

Having studied various characteristics within my own family and those ancestors that I have been able to research a  little about, and then looked at myself and my own son and grandson, certain characteristics and attitudes certainly stand out. (Not always favourably, alas.)

Many things shape and influence our lives, but our genetic makeup, and the attitudes within a family environment, certainly leave tangible traces behind after we are gone, I am certain. As for the 'afterlife' in a spiritual sense, who knows?