Scientific possibility of an afterlife? ...of somesort

shane9689

hey, i'm going to take a giant leap out there with the scientific ideas of the afterlife and suggest we will have more life after death....i mean, if time is infinite, then anything that can happen will happen, right? because there is infinite time (thus opportunities) for it to occur, so statistically, if its even marginally possible, it will happen eventually right?
so mathematically, there probably is a very very very very very very very very marginal statistic for the chances of our bodies and mind being recreated in its exact form before our death once again as it has already been proven to be a possible form for us to take..... and since we have infinity for it to happen again, it has to happen again right? just as you roll dice, you eventually have to roll two 6's...eventually we have to take form again? and since we will be non-existent in the intervening time, we will simply become conscious again in our next form.... p.s i'm not a scientist, so if anyone here knows about chemistry or physics, any thoughts?

peaceboi

Checkout this video by Dr.Peter Fenwick,
consultant neuro-psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. He has researched near-death experiences over many decades, as well as the science of what happens when we die. Heard about this topic on the rte 1 radio show 'what's it all about' few weeks ago.
They also discussed few interesting findings from a Belgian Neuroscientist.
Podcast here http://www.rte.ie/radio1/whats-it-all-about/programmes/2014/0406/607106-whats-it-all-about-sunday-6-april-2014/?clipid=1527154

peaceboi

Sorry, correct link for Dr.Peter Fenwick http://youtu.be/-6kDMl6N3C4

nagirrac

shane9689 wrote: »

so mathematically, there probably is a very very very very very very very very marginal statistic for the chances of our bodies and mind being recreated in its exact form before our death once again as it has already been proven to be a possible form for us to take..... and since we have infinity for it to happen again, it has to happen again right? just as you roll dice, you eventually have to roll two 6's...eventually we have to take form again? and since we will be non-existent in the intervening time, we will simply become conscious again in our next form.... p.s i'm not a scientist, so if anyone here knows about chemistry or physics, any thoughts?

What you are describing is generally known as the theory of Eternal Return. Put simply this states that time is not liner but cyclical and that everything that occurs will continue to repeat itself in cycles for eternity. It was specifically this idea that led Nietzsche to his philosophy that existence is ultimately pointless and absurd, as we are just destined to repeat the same lives over and over for eternity. A somewhat horrendous thought if you think about it, even if there are specific life events that one might consider well worth it

Hotblack Desiato

peaceboi wrote: »

Sorry, correct link for Dr.Peter Fenwick http://youtu.be/-6kDMl6N3C4

How about a brief summary of what he says not just a link?

magicbastarder

shane9689 wrote: »

if time is infinite

there's the first big question.

SpaceTime

Well, it would be nice if there was and I think humans can't really easily handle the concept of mortality for very understandable reasons - it's horrible!

However, I'm definitely not counting on it and plan to live my life in the here and now.

frag420

Happy groundhog day!!

magicbastarder

anyway, what's being talked about here is not an afterlife, just a repeat life. and it wouldn't be the same you, anyway.

shane9689

yes, a repeat life....but one in which everything is the exact same up to a point...so if take it from an atheist stand point, then it is me! because what else am i other than a collection of matter...in this case, that matter has been put back together thus its the same me! in a sort of endless cycle....im not trying to justify some bias in my head that wants their to be an afterlife (everyone wants there to be one) but im just entertaining the idea out of curiosity for the loopholes in our knowledge of science

Pherekydes

shane9689 wrote: »

yes, a repeat life....but one in which everything is the exact same up to a point...so if take it from an atheist stand point, then it is me! because what else am i other than a collection of matter

We are not just a collection of matter! We are our thoughts, knowledge, experiences, loves, hates and feelings collected over a lifetime.

shane9689

Pherekydes wrote: »

We are not just a collection of matter! We are our thoughts, knowledge, experiences, loves, hates and feelings collected over a lifetime.

which are stored in the brain, which uses chemicals and neurons etc... to collect and store this information. it can be replicated just its not an easy task to do.

smokingman

shane9689 wrote: »

everyone wants there to be one)

Well I certainly don't

nagirrac

Pherekydes wrote: »

We are not just a collection of matter! We are our thoughts, knowledge, experiences, loves, hates and feelings collected over a lifetime.

The materialist reductionist position, which is the predominant position by far in neuroscience today, claims that all conscious experience is caused by, and not just correlates to, neural activity. As Francis Crick said "you are nothing but a pack of neurons".

This would suggest as the OP has stated, that if we had the technology to build a human brain with exactly the same neural network as yours for example, and keep it fed and watered with a similar environment to what you are experiencing, it would have identical conscious experience to you.

If you find this unbelievable, then you have to consider some other position such as some form of dualism or dual aspect monism.

Akrasia

It is not possible for an intelligence to exist outside of a medium capable of hosting it. Our intelligence exists within the structures of our brain and nervous system.

A computers intelligence exists within the structures of the physical computer and the virtual machines that are created in the software.

There is no plausible mechanism for a soul to exist outside of the physical body, however, because of our advancing technology, in the distant future it should be possible for humans to create computers capable of hosting our intelligence, basically brain emulators where we can download our consciousness through some kind of interface

The first person to download his/her brain to an artificial computer will be the first person to ever have an 'afterlife'

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Akrasia wrote: »

The first person to download his/her brain to an artificial computer will be the first person to ever have an 'afterlife'

Depends on your definition of "person". I doubt the process you describe would amount to the transfer of a consciousness.

sydthebeat

Time is not infinite.

magicbastarder

some infinities are bigger than others, too.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway, what's being talked about here is not an afterlife, just a repeat life. and it wouldn't be the same you, anyway.

Tell that to the guy who worked the transporter in Star Trek.

shane9689

sydthebeat wrote: »

Time is not infinite.

pretty sure that's debatable, i read up abit on the idea that it is finite, and if anything it just shows how limited our understanding of mathematics is but doesnt seem to entirely say time isnt infinite?...confusing anyhow.

also, even if time is finite, it still doesnt entirely de-bunk my suggestion, merely turns the odds from "has to happen" into "could happen".

shane9689

also i was argueing with another person about this...and they said even if time was infinite, it doesnt mean we would be entirely recreated...and i suppose that is true too.... if time is infinite, everything could be in a constant state of change for eternity meaning nothing would ever repeat itself but rhater new things would constantly we cropping up in an infinite cycle? does that even make sense? my brain hurts

shane9689

all this thinking has made me realise....we really dont know jack **** about anything (and im not talking about death, but everything in general)

sydthebeat

shane9689 wrote: »

pretty sure that's debatable, i read up abit on the idea that it is finite, and if anything it just shows how limited our understanding of mathematics is but doesnt seem to entirely say time isnt infinite?...confusing anyhow.

also, even if time is finite, it still doesnt entirely de-bunk my suggestion, merely turns the odds from "has to happen" into "could happen".

Yes it's completely debatable

bnt

There's a saying in science that goes something like "if you don't write it down, it didn't happen". So, if I've been "here" before in some form, but don't (and could never have) any awareness or memory of it, what's the point? We're back to Russell's Teapot again. :cool:

professore

Maybe we're all immortal beings who are part of some elaborate videogame, since our actual existence as beings of pure energy is pretty boring? Who really knows.

Hotblack Desiato

Akrasia wrote: »

A computers intelligence exists within the structures of the physical computer and the virtual machines that are created in the software.

Do not mistake the ability to perform rapid calculations as intelligence.

A computer is no more intelligent than a pocket calculator, just faster and more complex, but still mindlessly following a program.

There is no plausible mechanism for a soul to exist outside of the physical body, however, because of our advancing technology,

Souls do not exist - unless you have evidence to the contrary..?

Brian Shanahan

magicbastarder wrote: »

some infinities are bigger than others, too.

And there's always room in Hilbert's Hotel, if only you know how to stack them.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

A computer is no more intelligent than a pocket calculator, just faster and more complex, but still mindlessly following a program.

I think John Searle has developed a useful analogy, when he points out that computers can simulate weather conditions, and predict when it's going to rain. But that's obviously not the same as actual rain.

riffmongous

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Depends on your definition of "person". I doubt the process you describe would amount to the transfer of a consciousness.

Yeah that's how I see it, the same goes for the teleportation theories, strangely though it would work perfectly for everyone but you. Anyone familiar with Tarkovsky's Solaris?

riffmongous

ninja900 wrote: »

Do not mistake the ability to perform rapid calculations as intelligence.

A computer is no more intelligent than a pocket calculator, just faster and more complex, but still mindlessly following a program.



Souls do not exist - unless you have evidence to the contrary..?

And you are sure a human is truly intelligent? And not just following a very complex program?

Akrasia

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Depends on your definition of "person". I doubt the process you describe would amount to the transfer of a consciousness.

What is a person? What is the definition of death?

Death used to be defined as the moment the heart stopped, this was before we had the ability to restart the heart or put people on life support machines or transplant organs.
Now the definition of death is much more difficult to nail down. We can have people who have total brain inactivity except for the brain stem and can survive for decades on life support machines, or even just with feeding tubes and nursing care. The brain stem is capable of maintaining bodily functions but without self awareness or any higher cognitive function.

I would define someone in a persistent vegetative state to be dead as a 'person' because to me, the personage of someone is linked to their cognition more than it is to their corporeality.

If we can make a machine that can successfully emulate the brain and host a persons consciousness then I would have no problems in calling that a 'person'. There would be a legal and philosophical minefield in terms of the consequences of duplicating this personality, but regardless, each instance of this consciousness would be a 'person'.

Furthermore, artificial intelligence would also be entitled to the status of personhood once it reaches a level of self awareness such that it has an interest in it's own welfare.

I can see this merger between the mind and technology to be the way that humans will ultimately explore the universe. Would you volunteer to download your consciousness to a computer that will be installed on a probe/rover and sent to explore space? For you as a human, you would not have any of the experiences of the explorer, but you would also have a deep empathetic connection to what the explorer will experience/suffer on his journey. (I would only agree on two conditions. 1. there is a self destruct option, and 2, there is a hibernation mode that can alleviate the boredom of interstellar space travel)

Akrasia

ninja900 wrote: »

Do not mistake the ability to perform rapid calculations as intelligence.

A computer is no more intelligent than a pocket calculator, just faster and more complex, but still mindlessly following a program./quote]
Computers are dumb, software is clever. If the software was the human mind and the hardware was an architecture capable of running that software, then we would be just as conscious and just as autonomous as we are in our organic bodies. (however conscious and however autonomous that actually is)



Souls do not exist - unless you have evidence to the contrary..?

Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to suggest that they did. I meant that souls don't exist, but our advancing technology could some day allow us to preserve our consciousness in an artificial brain

sbsquarepants

nagirrac wrote: »

What you are describing is generally known as the theory of Eternal Return. Put simply this states that time is not liner but cyclical and that everything that occurs will continue to repeat itself in cycles for eternity. It was specifically this idea that led Nietzsche to his philosophy that existence is ultimately pointless and absurd, as we are just destined to repeat the same lives over and over for eternity. A somewhat horrendous thought if you think about it, even if there are specific life events that one might consider well worth it

Never heard that phrase before, but the block universe theory basically says everything that can happen not only will, but already has happened. Time is basically an illusion, the universe is similar to a movie reel we perceive time as flowing because we can only experience 1 frame at a time, the present, but the past and the future are just as real, we just don't inhabit them, we have done (the past) and we will do (the future) and so we perceive time as flowing, but to an outside observer we are just frame hopping. The downside of this theory is that we have no control over anything that we do - it's all set in stone.
Basically the lingering doubt I have regarding some god type figure (probably about 0.1%) is that I can't see how free will could exist without one, and I just don't like the idea that it doesn't exist at all. But it certainly looks unlikely to if you consider the evidence!

Akrasia

shane9689 wrote: »

also i was argueing with another person about this...and they said even if time was infinite, it doesnt mean we would be entirely recreated...and i suppose that is true too.... if time is infinite, everything could be in a constant state of change for eternity meaning nothing would ever repeat itself but rhater new things would constantly we cropping up in an infinite cycle? does that even make sense? my brain hurts

Imagine a digital clock that someone has plugged out and plugged back in without resetting the time
The alarm clock is flashing 00:00 and will continue to do so indefinitely. Despite the fact that the same pattern is flashing repeatedly, every instance of those numbers being generated, is a new event. The pattern is repeated, but the actual events are always new. Even if time was eternal and infinity means everything is doomed to happen over and over again, these are all still new events, even if they are indistinguishable from events that happened before.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

This would suggest as the OP has stated, that if we had the technology to build a human brain with exactly the same neural network as yours for example, and keep it fed and watered with a similar environment to what you are experiencing, it would have identical conscious experience to you.

Not really. If you consider a neural network as being a class of state machine, you need not just to construct an identical network, you also need to restore it to an identical state. e.g. if we are playing a game on a computer, and turn the computer off without saving the game, turning the computer back on will not restore the game. The problem with comparing the state of the brain to that of a computer is that the brain operates with analogue variables (electrical levesl, neurotransmitter chemical make up, etc..) whereas most computers deal with discrete variables. This means that while the brain can reasonably be considered a state machine, it cannot necessarily be considered a finite state machine, as the number of states is infinite on the basis of the infinite variability of analogue variables.

This is where I have problems with the notion that, given appropriate technology, laws of determinism suggest you could store and recreate something like the human brain in a given state, to a level of accuracy that it would be include exact memories and psychological make up when restored. It is quite possible that this is not technically achievable, in much the same way is that it is possible that faster than light travel will never be achievable. At the same time, I don't doubt we'll come up with an artificial intelligence in the near future that will include persistence to the degree that it will effectively be immortal, but just not human.

At the same time, I don't for a moment believe that any part of human conciousness exists outside of the brain, precedes it, or outlives it, and as such would not subscribe to either a dualist or monist position.

tommy2bad

smacl;
At the same time, I don't for a moment believe that any part of human conciousness exists outside of the brain, precedes it, or outlives it, and as such would not subscribe to either a dualist or monist position.

Like you I doubt conciousness exists outside the human body, certainly not what we experience as human conciousness.
I can't rule out the possibility that that conciousness could exist outside a human body, but it would not be the same conciousness, it would be changes by the changed properties of whatever it existed 'in'. It might be a continuation of conciousness but not the same.
Death is a chaotic event that destroys the information we call conciousness but we know of information crossing chaotic events and continuing past them. Theirs a possibility that conciousness could do the same. Observing this would be a problem as we don't know what it would change to, or what purpose it would find. So far no conciousness has decided to engage with us either it can't or can't be bothered.

Akrasia

smacl wrote: »

Not really. If you consider a neural network as being a class of state machine, you need not just to construct an identical network, you also need to restore it to an identical state. e.g. if we are playing a game on a computer, and turn the computer off without saving the game, turning the computer back on will not restore the game. The problem with comparing the state of the brain to that of a computer is that the brain operates with analogue variables (electrical levesl, neurotransmitter chemical make up, etc..) whereas most computers deal with discrete variables. This means that while the brain can reasonably be considered a state machine, it cannot necessarily be considered a finite state machine, as the number of states is infinite on the basis of the infinite variability of analogue variables.

This is where I have problems with the notion that, given appropriate technology, laws of determinism suggest you could store and recreate something like the human brain in a given state, to a level of accuracy that it would be include exact memories and psychological make up when restored. It is quite possible that this is not technically achievable, in much the same way is that it is possible that faster than light travel will never be achievable. At the same time, I don't doubt we'll come up with an artificial intelligence in the near future that will include persistence to the degree that it will effectively be immortal, but just not human.

I wouldn't discount the possibility that future computers will incorporate many of the same features that give organic brains such flexibility and the ability to perform so well with a tiny fraction of the energy it takes to power silicon based technology

It's likely that the computer architecture we have today will be nothing like the computer architecture that's common in 2114. For a start, silicon will be replaced with graphene which will give us a massive performance and efficiency boost (overheating is not an issue with graphene which has been demonstrated to have the ability to 'self cool' due to it's extremely low electrical resistance. In the meantime, we're also running experiments on how to re-program organic cells to get them to perform tasks for us. We can already remotely control small insects by directly manipulating their brain. In 50 to 100 years, I can see organic computer components that are capable of the kinds of fuzzy logic that brains can do but computers find so difficult. First we will simply hijack the biological processes to do our bidding without necessarily fully understanding how they work, but eventually, we will be able to reverse engineer them and replicate them using materials that are easier for us to work with and more robust (we don't have to worry about path dependent evolution, we can make things more efficient by clever engineering.)

GarIT

The premise in the OP can easily be proven false. The first step is to acknowledge that infinity does not only equal infinity, infinity also equals infinity-1, infinity equals infinity+infinity, infinity equals infinity-infinity, you get the idea. We also need to understand that infinity does not mean unmeasurable due to quantity it actually means without end.

Just because there are infinite chances for something to happen, doesn't mean everything will happen.

If you assume the chance of the universe being arranged in a certain order is like a lottery, it is completely random and any combination of matter could come up.

With a lottery every time you produce a result your chances increase of getting on specific result, in the Irish lottery there is a 1 in 8 million chance of any single combination coming up, if I do it twice there is a 1 in 4 million chance, each time I generate a result the possibility will approach certain but never reach certain. If use the same lotto numbers in infinitely many draws it means that winning would be almost certain but never certain. Even though I am providing infinitely many possibilities for my numbers to come up that doesn't prove that they will.

With the universe there are infinitely many arrangements, so the chances of any single event happening is infinitely close to 0.

The arrangement of the universe may be chosen an infinite number of times but each time it is chosen anything can happen, there are infinitely many arrangements to choose from.

Because there are infinitely many solutions we can prove that not every solution will happen. It is impossible to choose every option of a set of infinity options even if you have infinitely many choices, infinity divided by infinity does not equal 1 and infinity-1 equals infinity. If we pick one arrangement of matter there are still infinity-1 arrangements available, as infinity-1 = infinity, every time of your infinite times you choose an arrangement you still have infinitely many options left.

Just because we have infinite time it doesn't mean each of infinite possibilities will happen and by extension infinite time doesn't guarantee any event will happen twice. QED

Akrasia

GarIT wrote: »

With a lottery every time you produce a result your chances increase of getting on specific result, in the Irish lottery there is a 1 in 8 million chance of any single combination coming up, if I do it twice there is a 1 in 4 million

Actually, if you do the lottery twice, you'll have a 2 in 8 million chance of winning, not a 1 in 4 million chance

GarIT

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually, if you do the lottery twice, you'll have a 2 in 8 million chance of winning, not a 1 in 4 million chance

Do you understand what you have just written or is this a joke?

smacl

Akrasia wrote: »

It's likely that the computer architecture we have today will be nothing like the computer architecture that's common in 2114.

No doubt. I started programming initially in 1979 on a Commodore PET with 4K of RAM on a 1mhz processor. 35 years on, I'm typing this on an 8 core PC with 64gb of RAM running at 4ghz with dozens of extra independent processors doing all sorts of things to make life easier for the CPU. So about thirty two thousand times faster with sixteen million times more memory and all sorts of other fancy stuff I could have only dreamt of back in the day.

FWIW, I think the PCs we have today have more than enough computing power to support AI, we just haven't as yet figured out how to develop it. i.e. the problem is not with the computers so much as our feeble brains

shane9689

i see the argument for time not last infinity in a mathematical sense, but could that just be a flaw in our understanding of mathamatics? because time is a concept that cant not last infinity, as long as there is anything, even nothing, there is time, since time is a concept we created in our minds and not an actual physical thing. Doesn't the passing of time happen regardless of whether there is a universe or not?

shane9689

had another thought about it...if there is nothing, is there no passing of time? nothing to measure or compare it against

GarIT

Time is believed to be something that happens, not something that was created by humans. The point wasn't that time isn't infinite, it was that no matter how long time is even if it is infinite it can be proven that it is not possible to select each option from a pool of infinite options.

While events repeating themselves are both possible and also highly improbable, you cannot use the argument of time being infinite to say it will eventually happen, as there are infinitely many possibilities as to what could happen.

Red Nissan

Everything runs in circles, even our very Universe is birth, maturity and death on a repeating cycle.

There is no reason to believe that our selves wont follow the same pattern.

Also, as we develop AI we are finding that the collection of electronics are taking on human like forms and attitudes that were not programmed for ~ speculation is a chemical computer could become life as we know it.

Funny thing is we are in fact already a chemical computer and our bodies are largely dependent on chemicals, so theoretically, it's not too far a summation to suggest that as we evolve further, we might not actually need our physical form at all.

I take all this as a matter of fact, what I ponder sometimes is this going to happen at all, has it already happened in our past and can every living person on the planet do this, or are some permanently trapped. ?

robindch

smacl wrote: »

[...] 8 core PC [...]

Mee toooo! *grin*

Zillah

Just a few thoughts on points raised:

Time might be infinite but the matter and energy of the universe isn't. The universe is expanding and going cold all the time. Once heat death occurs nothing changes ever again, and everything gets so far away from everything else that galaxies don't exist anymore. A few billion years is by no means infinite, and it is in fact a very short time when you consider the ludicrously improbable chain of events that would be required to recreate a human brain in its exact configuration.

Even if that were not the case it does not mean that everything that can potentially happen would happen. The universe could go on infinitely and never see you or anything like you again. Even if we assume it could do so: It's a very deep rabbit-hole. If you will get perfect copies of yourself then you will get inaccurate copies as well. The you where you remember being Hitler. The you where you were a serial killer. The you where you were abandoned as a child. the you where you grew up in Mexico. Are any of these any less of an afterlife than the one you imagine? Do any of them matter? There is no reason to believe there would be any continuity of consciousness.

There's nothing fundamentally different to machine intelligence compared to human intelligence, beyond current limitations. We are nothing more than an adaptive set of behaviours, behaviours that could be copied or approximated easily in a sufficiently advanced virtual environment. You could posit that a machine, however complex, could only ever emulate consciousness rather than truly experience it - but then again: we assume that other human beings are experiencing consciousness as we do simply because of their outward appearance of it, why not the same for a machine? It would be rather small minded to assume the fact that our brain-computers are wet makes all the difference.

Finally: You can't 'upload' your brain anywhere. Data doesn't move, it is copied. You copy/paste a brain, you don't cut/paste - unless you shoot yourself in the head immediately afterwards but that doesn't seem productive. You create a digital copy of your brain, nothing more. Potentially that copy could experience sentience if your virtual environment if well designed, but you don't 'go' there.

GarIT

Red Nissan wrote: »

we might not actually need our physical form at all.

As of yet though we have never found any evidence of anything that isn't physical existing. Its possible but a lot of people who have done a lot of research in the area believe there is nothing other than the physical.

Our thoughts, emotions, memories are all physical things, how could a physical storage system be mapped onto something that is not physical.

Also: There is the issue of instances of an object. If you have two chairs that are absolutely identical right down to atomic level are they the same chair? No. It's the same with brains, even if two brains were exactly identical, they are not the same brain but a different brain that's layout is exactly the same.

Red Nissan

GarIT wrote: »

Our thoughts, emotions, memories are all physical things, how could a physical storage system be mapped onto something that is not physical.

My own thoughts on that is we are possessed soon after birth and that being is then you or I.

I know some religions like to consider this soon after birth phenomenon as the arrival of a holy spirit of some sort, so the idea is not new by any means.

If there were to be any factor of this, it suggests that a personality could exist out of a host, but this also suggests that a time period is evolved and I have no thoughts on that part.

GarIT

Red Nissan wrote: »

My own thoughts on that is we are possessed soon after birth and that being is then you or I.

I know some religions like to consider this soon after birth phenomenon as the arrival of a holy spirit of some sort, so the idea is not new by any means.

If there were to be any factor of this, it suggests that a personality could exist out of a host, but this also suggests that a time period is evolved and I have no thoughts on that part.

I'll call it a coul just for this discussion but what can a soul actually do? We know that thinking, memories, feelings are all physical things happening in the brain what does the soul actually do? Just be present, or even nothing?

Toomelady

shane9689 wrote: »

hey, i'm going to take a giant leap out there with the scientific ideas of the afterlife and suggest we will have more life after death....i mean, if time is infinite, then anything that can happen will happen, right? because there is infinite time (thus opportunities) for it to occur, so statistically, if its even marginally possible, it will happen eventually right?
so mathematically, there probably is a very very very very very very very very marginal statistic for the chances of our bodies and mind being recreated in its exact form before our death once again as it has already been proven to be a possible form for us to take..... and since we have infinity for it to happen again, it has to happen again right? just as you roll dice, you eventually have to roll two 6's...eventually we have to take form again? and since we will be non-existent in the intervening time, we will simply become conscious again in our next form.... p.s i'm not a scientist, so if anyone here knows about chemistry or physics, any thoughts?

either its all for something or its all for nothing either way it doesn't matter. who would want to live forever anyway in whatever form or life ...........