What do you believe happens when we die

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To you. That's the point I was making. It is an entirely personal subjective response to the reality you perceive. But it says nothing ABOUT that reality OTHER than your response to it.

But you being amazed there is "something" does not mean "nothing" is the default and there being "something" is actually remarkable. It seems that way to you is all. Perhaps there being "something" is the default and is not at all remarkable. And there being "Nothing" would be truly weird and unusual and remarkable or even impossible. Who knows?

The awe we might feel at reality around us should pretty much NEVER be used as a basis for assuming anything factual about that reality.



But we do not know it "happened from nothing", thats the problem. The Big bang was the sudden expansion of a singularity of infinite density and mass. That is not "nothing". It is as much the opposite of nothing as I am able to imagine.

To my knowledge we have no evidence that suggests there ever was "nothing". We simply do not know whether there ever was, or not. It is an open question.

And until someone answers that question, I will neither assume there ever was nothing, nor will I assume there always was something. I remain neutral and open on the question.

We do have a resident poster who claims to be a Theoretical Physicist, or a secondary school teacher, or both. He usually drops in when this conversation comes up. Maybe he will drop in and say more on this than I have. But to my knowledge, as I said, we do not know there ever was "nothing".

I quote from this article on modern Physics


"The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of."


http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

Nobody can be fully objective as as you say we are bound by the limits of our minds. However, i can't see how 'somethingness' is the default.


Scientists believe in a 'block-universe’ where time and space are connected, otherwise known as spacetime.The theory, which is backed up Einstein’s theory of relativity, states that space and time are part of a four dimensional structure where everything thing that has happened has its own co-ordinates in spacetime.
This would allow everything to be ‘real’ in the sense that the past, and even the future, are still there in spacetime – making everything equally important as the present.'


Time may be/is an illusion too.

Humans can see patterns that aren't there, fair enough but they can also make out ones that are too.


Anyway, the most unbiased tool we have, I believe, is mathematics and what is seems to tell us about the universe. Some of what it seems to be saying is amazing to most people.

smacl wrote: »

I disagree. Mathematics is simply a very concise descriptive language. It can be, and often is, used to describe things that are purely abstract that don't correspond anything physical. We learn more about the universe through speculative theory followed by searching for observations that support or undermine that theory. Sometimes the observations come first. Mathematics is a tool that can help us both develop the theory and understand the observations but it is just a tool.

Can be but sometimes predictions are made by mathematical formula that are then proved by experiment or later observation as with Einstein's theorys.


Death might be meaningless if time is an illusion.

'The theory, which is backed up Einstein’s theory of relativity, states that space and time are part of a four dimensional structure where everything thing that has happened has its own co-ordinates in spacetime.
This would allow everything to be ‘real’ in the sense that the past, and even the future, are still there in spacetime – making everything equally important as the present.'


If true it really means that time or the past is an illusion and still exists.

saabsaab wrote: »

What is the probability of a supreme being? In an infinity of time in a multiverse?

smacl wrote: »

Omnipresent kind of negates any added value for infinite time and a multiverse. Pretty sure the people who invented God weren't really thinking this far ahead

Plus, ona common conception of God, the supreme being isn't part of the universe (or multiverse) at all, but precedes it, metaphysically speaking, in something lke the way an author proceeds a book.

You might argue that the observed existence of one quite short book implies the existence of an author, even though we'll admittedly never observe the author by examining the book. But I don't think you could argue that the existence of a large number of very long books implies the existence of an author any more strongly. If any book can exist without an author to account for it, then why not all of them? If no book can exist without an author to account for it, then one book is sufficient to prove that there is an author.

They said that if you had a group of monkeys typing away for infinity you would eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare!


If you have an infinity and perhaps of multiverses an all powerful being could exist at one point. If that is ever possible then it has or will if you accept that time is an illusion we are probably part of that now.

monara wrote: »

Yes there are lots of things we cannot see which might be true. And then again, they might'nt.

True.

Often everything the experts say is taken as gospel and fact, when in fact it is only a theory.

Infinate monkey theorem!


see below


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


Implies that anything is possible with an infinity to do it.

monara wrote: »

Thanks. Very interesting. Does this mean that with an infinity of time we could make gods of ourselves?:pac:

Hail Monara!

Apologies to any supreme being.

saabsaab wrote: »

Infinate monkey theorem!


see below


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


Implies that anything is possible with an infinity to do it.

So are you saying if I had infinity to do the lotto twice a week, I would eventually get 3 numbers?

At that point no one knows.

monara wrote: »

And I understand from physicists that the elements from which our bodies are composed began formation at the Big Bang, 16 billion years ago or so; so we were a long time coming. And physicists assure me that if we were reduced to these elements only, we would be microscopic particles invisible to the naked eye; and that the particles of all the people on earth would fit into a cube the size of a cube of sugar. I am not a physicist but take it for what its worth.

Aaaagggghhh! Pop-science overload!

The big bang is estimated to have occurred 13.8 billion years ago - close enough I suppose!

Hydrogen (the simplest element, atomic number 1) formed within minutes of the BB along with very small quantities of other very light elements. Helium (atomic number 2) made up about a quarter of the mass of the early elements, lithium (atomic number 3) only a billionth.

Hydrogen and helium clouds can collapse under their own gravity to form stars. All heavier elements - including the basis of life, carbon - had to wait until these stars reached the end of their lives and exploded into supernovae until they could be formed. Even for the largest (shortest lived) stars, this is tens of millions of years. (Our sun is estimated to have a 10 billion year lifespan and we're about halfway through.)

Elements vs. molecules is a question of chemistry i.e. atoms bonding electronically together. The atoms themselves don't change. Confusion can arise because the word "element" describes both a fundamental type of atom (i.e. a unique atomic number), and a pure sample of a substance composed of atoms all with the same atomic number. So if you changed all the molecules in your body into their elemental form, your body would no longer exist but all of the atoms which made it up would remain entirely unchanged.

Now it is true that atoms consist almost entirely of empty space - but the only way to squash away this empty space is within an extremely dense object - a black hole or a neutron star which both can arise from the core of dying stars. When the star stops "burning", depending on its mass there is no longer enough energy to stop gravity collapsing it to the point where atoms can no longer exist within it. Gravity on the surface of a neutron star would be about 100 billion times greater than on Earth. 1cc of neutron star would weigh about 400 million tonnes. If the average weight of a human (including children) is 50kg, and there are 8 billion of them, then total human mass is about 400 billion tonnes.

So you would need about a litre of this super dense neutron star stuff to fit in all the particles of all the people on earth

robindch wrote: »

8,000,000,000 * 50 = 400 billion kilos, or /1000 = 400m tons.

The density of neutron stars is in the region 3.7×10^17 to 5.9×10^17 kg/m3, so the average comes out at 4.8×10^17 kg/m3. 400 billion kilos at 4.8×10^17 kg/m3 indicates a volume of 8.3 ×10^-7 m^3, or 0.83 cubic centimeters, 830 cubic mm (cube of 9.4 mm edge). The internet suggests that the average sugar cube has an edge of 0.465 inches, around 11.8mm giving a volume of 1643 cubic mm. So, humanity occupies 830 cu.mm, while the sugar occupies 1643 cu.mm, so the estimate that the collected mass of humanity would occupy the same space as a cube of sugar is off by almost exactly 50%.

Conclusion - one sugar cube of your average neutron star would almost balance two complete doses of humanity.

Pop science indeed!

Calculus :eek:

*backs slowly out of thread*

robindch wrote: »

Arithmetic!

Numbers with symbols and squiggly things!!

saabsaab wrote: »

All God's language, Maths.

There is no God.

What have I done? :eek:

smacl wrote: »

A number invented by the Mesopotamians and employed by the Persians to create the jebra (algebra) used in the maths above. God had sweet FA to do with it, Allah for the win :pac:

Surely mathematics is a way to describe the workings of the universe and its processes and predates any invention and is more of a discovery of the laws of the cosmos.

smacl wrote: »

It's obviously open for debate, but I personally go with the notion that mathematics is a very succinct and precise language for describing ideas. As such, it is a human construct which is evolving with us as we explore and refine abstract notions. Much like other human languages, there are multiple ways to describe or express the same thing. e.g. we can define relationships between points in space geometrically, trigonometrically, using vectors, using matrices and using quaternions or various mixtures of the same. We can describe the same objects in space using Cartesian coordinates, polar coordinates, barycentric coordinates etc... and most likely someone will come up with other ways of describing the same thing more eloquently.

I personally don't hold that mathematics need have any relationship to the physical universe and is better thought of in the abstract.

It may not need to have a relationship to the universe but the physical universe needs a relationship to it.


Interesting extract below..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis#Observability