life out there?

[Prof Prolapse]

Blackpuddin said:

What's to say dark matter isn't one possible end result for evolution?

A little basic reading?

[IainT]

Blackpuddin said:

IainT said:

Blackpuddin said:

What's to say dark matter isn't one possible end result for evolution?

I'd hazard a guess at the fundamental nature of the universe - aka physics.

As you understand physics, that is. Again that's a terrestrial view taking no account of the literally infinite possibilities.

In our universe? No, there are not literally infinite possibilities. Physics works a certain way here. It's postulated that there are (potentially) infinite universes that might differ in fundamental ways - different speed of light, different energy states, etc. These would be odd places by our standards but they're not our universe.

In our universe the possibilities are limited by the underlying rules.

[Prof Prolapse]

Nope. It's actually magic. Take science and bin it, when we die we all become intergalactic magic butterflies and transform into dark matter.

Somebody slap him.

[MrBrightSi]

Prof we have no proof or evidence of anything after death, so it's up for grabs, it's a lot better a prediction than eternal torture at the hands of some despot lord.

I think man needs a spiritual side to death. Remember a guy called Alan Watts, bit of a hippy but the far eastern teachings he took have a better outlook for our death than any Abrahamic religion.

What i've taken from science is that we're complex forms of energy and energy changes form and cannot be destroyed. So the biggest thing for me is the saying what would it feel like to go to sleep and never wake or to wake up after never having slept.

It's complete conjecture, absolute individual nonsense and i'd rather think that than believing in "nothing" or worse "hellfire".

[Prof Prolapse]

MrBrightSi said:

Prof we have no proof or evidence of anything after death, so it's up for grabs, it's a lot better a prediction than eternal torture at the hands of some despot lord.

I think man needs a spiritual side to death. Remember a guy called Alan Watts, bit of a hippy but the far eastern teachings he took have a better outlook for our death than any Abrahamic religion.

What i've taken from science is that we're complex forms of energy and energy changes form and cannot be destroyed. So the biggest thing for me is the saying what would it feel like to go to sleep and never wake or to wake up after never having slept.

It's complete conjecture, absolute individual nonsense and i'd rather think that than believing in "nothing" or worse "hellfire".

You make a claim you back it up. That's basic critical thinking not even science. There is no evidence of an afterlife, so until someone shows otherwise, you can only conclude there is nothing. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Nature doesn't owe you a nice answer. It is what it is.

Spirituality is not the same thing. A great number of people can accept the world for what it is, they don't need such fake comforts and they are richer for the experience and deeply spiritual. Not believing in an afterlife actually becomes a comfort. It is that sense of finality which eventually empowers you to do things you would not otherwise of had the courage to do.

Death is the only thing which is certain, the truth of the issue is right in front of your eyes, and you invent ways for it not to be true. To somehow not be the end, I'll never understand that.

I can't really understand your point about energy not being destroyed. It's certainly an interesting factoid I guess.

[MrBrightSi]

Prof Prolapse said:

You make a claim you back it up. That's basic critical thinking not even science. There is no evidence of an afterlife, so until someone shows otherwise, you can only conclude there is nothing. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Nature doesn't owe you a nice answer. It is what it is.

Spirituality is not the same thing. A great number of people can accept the world for what it is, they don't need such fake comforts and they are richer for the experience and deeply spiritual. Not believing in an afterlife actually becomes a comfort. It is that sense of finality which eventually empowers you to do things you would not otherwise of had the courage to do.

Death is the only thing which is certain, the truth of the issue is right in front of your eyes, and you invent ways for it not to be true. To somehow not be the end, I'll never understand that.

I can't really understand your point about energy not being destroyed. It's certainly an interesting factoid I guess.

Im not arguing with you there, im just saying theres as much chance to nothing as there is something, i just can't deal with the usual heaven hell thing, that's bullst definitely.

I shall not push it though as you're right, this is hardly an afterlife debate.

[Simpo Two]

It's very difficult for someone to imagine themselves not existing, hence the fondness for heaven, afterlife etc. But whilst we have 'energy' - at least the atoms that make us do - all that energy is transferred on death into the environment. It's simple chemistry and we are, I believe, just $12 of chemicals, albeit arranged in a very special way.

[IainT]

MrBrightSi said:

Im not arguing with you there, im just saying theres as much chance to nothing as there is something, i just can't deal with the usual heaven hell thing, that's bullst definitely.

I shall not push it though as you're right, this is hardly an afterlife debate.

Just because there amy be something or may be nothing doesn't imply that they have equal chance. Lack of evidence implies there's little chance of something. Very much like the topic of the thread - the stats imply that there will be life out there, maybe even intelligent life.

I'm fairly certain that Simpo Two is correct - we're just chemistry even if very special chemistry but you can't claim there's something (without evidence) and then discount "heave/hell" which has equal evidence...

[MrBrightSi]

Right, it's hard to put my point across without sounding like some claptrap, crystal rubbing Gaia enthusiast.

I'll just say i agree with you all and it's quite nice to see people who accept a finality to it all rather than the cookie cutter heaven/hell/rebirth thing.

[Blackpuddin]

Prof Prolapse said:

You make a claim you back it up. That's basic critical thinking not even science. There is no evidence of an afterlife, so until someone shows otherwise, you can only conclude there is nothing. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Nature doesn't owe you a nice answer. It is what it is.

Spirituality is not the same thing. A great number of people can accept the world for what it is, they don't need such fake comforts and they are richer for the experience and deeply spiritual. Not believing in an afterlife actually becomes a comfort. It is that sense of finality which eventually empowers you to do things you would not otherwise of had the courage to do.

Death is the only thing which is certain, the truth of the issue is right in front of your eyes, and you invent ways for it not to be true. To somehow not be the end, I'll never understand that.

I can't really understand your point about energy not being destroyed. It's certainly an interesting factoid I guess.

Ah yes, the old 'I don't believe it unless you can show me it's true' argument. Silo thinking that even very recently and on a very basic and Earthman-understandable level (ref the Pluto mission discoveries) has been shown to be a hopelessly limiting approach.

[Moonhawk]

Blackpuddin said:

Ah yes, the old 'I don't believe it unless you can show me it's true' argument. Silo thinking that even very recently and on a very basic and Earthman-understandable level (ref the Pluto mission discoveries) has been shown to be a hopelessly limiting approach.

Care to elaborate on that point regarding the pluto mission?

[Blackpuddin]

Moonhawk said:

Blackpuddin said:

Ah yes, the old 'I don't believe it unless you can show me it's true' argument. Silo thinking that even very recently and on a very basic and Earthman-understandable level (ref the Pluto mission discoveries) has been shown to be a hopelessly limiting approach.

Care to elaborate on that point regarding the pluto mission?

Well, the New Horizons findings were all over the media but in short the words 'baffled' 'amazed' and 'stunned' were used an awful lot to describe what they found on both Pluto and Charon.

[Moonhawk]

Blackpuddin said:

Moonhawk said:

Blackpuddin said:

Ah yes, the old 'I don't believe it unless you can show me it's true' argument. Silo thinking that even very recently and on a very basic and Earthman-understandable level (ref the Pluto mission discoveries) has been shown to be a hopelessly limiting approach.

Care to elaborate on that point regarding the pluto mission?

Well, the New Horizons findings were all over the media but in short the words 'baffled' 'amazed' and 'stunned' were used an awful lot to describe what they found on both Pluto and Charon.

But they didn't find anything particularly out of the ordinary - from what I read, leading up to the mission - they broadly knew what to expect, even if seeing it actually on screen was amazing and stunning.

The discoveries that are being made aren't nearly comparable to discovering there is actually an afterlife (for which there is currently no precedent for - nor any mechanism in known science) - which is the parallel you seemed to be drawing.

[Blackpuddin]

Moonhawk said:

Blackpuddin said:

Moonhawk said:

Blackpuddin said:

Ah yes, the old 'I don't believe it unless you can show me it's true' argument. Silo thinking that even very recently and on a very basic and Earthman-understandable level (ref the Pluto mission discoveries) has been shown to be a hopelessly limiting approach.

Care to elaborate on that point regarding the pluto mission?

Well, the New Horizons findings were all over the media but in short the words 'baffled' 'amazed' and 'stunned' were used an awful lot to describe what they found on both Pluto and Charon.

But they didn't find anything particularly out of the ordinary - from what I read, leading up to the mission - they broadly knew what to expect, even if seeing it actually on screen was amazing and stunning.

The discoveries that are being made aren't nearly comparable to discovering there is actually an afterlife (for which there is currently no precedent for - nor any mechanism in known science) - which is the parallel you seemed to be drawing.

I'm not anyone's teacher but the fact that geophysicists are "going back to the drawing board" (to quote mission leader Alan Stern) should at least give pause for thought and create some room for other possibilities beyond precedent and the limited actuality we have experienced thus far. I've not talked about the afterlife, I'm simply trying to posit the theory that there might be things we don't understand, but even that seems to be a step too far for those who demand proof of everything before they will entertain it on any level, even a hypothetical one.

[Moonhawk]

Blackpuddin said:

Moonhawk said:

Blackpuddin said:

Moonhawk said:

Blackpuddin said:

Ah yes, the old 'I don't believe it unless you can show me it's true' argument. Silo thinking that even very recently and on a very basic and Earthman-understandable level (ref the Pluto mission discoveries) has been shown to be a hopelessly limiting approach.

Care to elaborate on that point regarding the pluto mission?

Well, the New Horizons findings were all over the media but in short the words 'baffled' 'amazed' and 'stunned' were used an awful lot to describe what they found on both Pluto and Charon.

But they didn't find anything particularly out of the ordinary - from what I read, leading up to the mission - they broadly knew what to expect, even if seeing it actually on screen was amazing and stunning.

The discoveries that are being made aren't nearly comparable to discovering there is actually an afterlife (for which there is currently no precedent for - nor any mechanism in known science) - which is the parallel you seemed to be drawing.

I'm not anyone's teacher but the fact that geophysicists are "going back to the drawing board" (to quote mission leader Alan Stern) should at least give pause for thought and create some room for other possibilities beyond precedent and the limited actuality we have experienced thus far. I've not talked about the afterlife, I'm simply trying to posit the theory that there might be things we don't understand, but even that seems to be a step too far for those who demand proof of everything before they will entertain it on any level, even a hypothetical one.

The geophysicists going back to the drawing board (if that is what they are doing) are doing so because of new data which shows them that their existing models are inaccurate or incomplete. This is not the same as believing some arbitrary concept that is completely without foundation. Your offhand remark of "Ah yes, the old 'I don't believe it unless you can show me it's true' argument" doesn't really hold any weight in the context you have given it.

Science and scientists are always open to new things in light of new evidence - but that does not mean they cannot question that somebody posits without evidence.

The onus should always be on the person making a claim to back up their claim with evidence - and people should be rightly sceptical until they do - it doesn't matter whether the claim is about the afterlife or fairies down the bottom of the garden.

[Blackpuddin]

I'm not making a claim. I'm venturing the suggestion, not all that controversially I thought, that there is stuff we don't know about. That I can't prove this suggestion to be true doesn't make it any less likely.

[Moonhawk]

Blackpuddin said:

I'm not making a claim. I'm venturing the suggestion, not all that controversially I thought, that there is stuff we don't know about. That I can't prove this suggestion to be true doesn't make it any less likely.

Of course there is stuff we don't know about.

Acknowledging the fact that we don't know everything and actually believing an arbitrary claim that has no evidence to back it up (like the existence of an afterlife) are two totally different things.