Tully_Beaver Posted February 20, 2005 Posted February 20, 2005 ...that everything is made up of energy, right? When u break anything down to it's smallest, it's energy. So what the F? Apparently, when we die we still exist as energy so what h3ll is going on? Anyone got any thoughts on this. I have read lots of books about past lives, reincarnation etc. Just like to get some other opinions.
Nevermore Posted February 20, 2005 Posted February 20, 2005 No, when we die physical and chemical changes occur turning us into dirt.
Tully_Beaver Posted February 20, 2005 Author Posted February 20, 2005 Yes, but when u think about it everything is made of energy right? (quarks an all)
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2005 Posted February 20, 2005 I have read lots of books about past lives, reincarnation etc. Just like to get some other opinions.I think Pseudoscience and Metaphysics is a better place than Biology or GD to get a helpful response.
Ophiolite Posted February 20, 2005 Posted February 20, 2005 If you wish to approach the reincarnation issue I think it is a red herring to pursue the matter-energy equivalence route. What distinguishes life, in part, from non-life, is the organisation of that matter-energy in local defiance of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Since there is no quality evidence for a retention of meaningful organisation post mortem, and plenty of evidence against it, you would be better considering the possibility of non-physical attributes accounting for reincarnation, ghosts, the spirit world, etc.
Tully_Beaver Posted February 21, 2005 Author Posted February 21, 2005 Yes, but when u think about it everything is made of energy right? (quarks an all) no, you mean matter When I say "everything" I'm including matter. Still, everything is made of energy...right?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 No. Matter is equivelant to energy, by the equation E=MC², meaning you can convert matter to energy and get a result based on that equation. But they are not the same.
Tully_Beaver Posted February 21, 2005 Author Posted February 21, 2005 If you wish to approach the reincarnation issue I think it is a red herring to pursue the matter-energy equivalence route. What distinguishes life' date=' in part, from non-life, is the organisation of that matter-energy in local defiance of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Since there is no quality evidence [b']for [/b]a retention of meaningful organisation post mortem, and plenty of evidence against it, you would be better considering the possibility of non-physical attributes accounting for reincarnation, ghosts, the spirit world, etc. yeah, sorry I wasn't very specific in my first post, the existence of the spirit world and the possibily of non-physical attributes accounting for re-incarnation, ghosts etc. is what I was getting at. I was thinking how if everything is made, held togther by energy then there could be kind of another "plane" where all that kinda stuff exists, a non-physical place. Anyone else have any thoughts or comments?
Tully_Beaver Posted February 21, 2005 Author Posted February 21, 2005 No. Matter is equivelant to energy, by the equation E=MC², meaning you can convert matter to energy and get a result based on that equation. But they are not the same. Thanks for the reply. The way I'm looking at it is....matter is made of atoms, which consists of n's, p's and e's, which in turn consist of all crazy kinds of quarks, which are energy. I don't think E=MC^2 dissporves that.
Cadmus Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 ...that everything is made up of energy, right? OK Apparently, when we die we still exist as energy so what h3ll is going on?Once "we" die, the "we" part ceases. The various atoms that make up our bodies go their separate ways after death. I have read lots of books about past lives, reincarnation etc. Just like to get some other opinions.This is another topic entirely. I don't see any relationship between this statement and your prior one. Perhaps someone else does.
Cadmus Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Matter is equivelant to energy, by the equation E=MC², meaning you can convert matter to energy and get a result based on that equation. But they are not the same. I think that all matter is composed of energy as a necessary ingredient. Can you provide a name of some unit of matter where the name implies matter that can be considered in a context where it is completely devoid of any form of energy?
Sayonara Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Thanks for the reply. The way I'm looking at it is....matter is made of atoms, which consists of n's, p's and e's, which in turn consist of all crazy kinds of quarks, which are energy. I don't think E=MC^2 dissporves that. It's not intended to. You need to actually understand these things before you can have theories about them.
Tully_Beaver Posted February 21, 2005 Author Posted February 21, 2005 It's not intended to. You need to actually understand these things before you can have theories about them. "These things"? u mean atoms?' date=' the equation E=MC^2?, sub atomic particle? What am I miss understanding? When I say "everything" I'm including matter. Still, everything is made of energy...right? ^ my question No. Matter is equivelant to energy, by the equation E=MC², meaning you can convert matter to energy and get a result based on that equation. But they are not the same. ^an answer to my question... I guess the answer to my original post is no, noone has any thoughts on this at all.
Tully_Beaver Posted February 21, 2005 Author Posted February 21, 2005 This is another topic entirely. I don't see any relationship between this statement and your prior one. Perhaps someone else does. yeah' date=' sorry I wasn't very specific in my first post, the existence of the spirit world and the possibily of non-physical attributes accounting for re-incarnation, ghosts etc. is what I was getting at. I was thinking how if everything is made, held togther by energy then there could be kind of another "plane" where all that kinda stuff exists, a non-physical place. [/quote'] ^^^^^this is the relationship I was getting at.
Phi for All Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 ^^^^^this is the relationship I was getting at. I get the impression you think you are speaking over everyone's head here, Tully. The reason you're getting such uninformative posts is that you are aksing questions that are too broad to get definitive answers, in a thread you started without reading anything else that's already been posted. Please do yourself a favor and use the "Search" and "Search This Forum" tools at the top right and you will find that you are, in essence, walking into a library and asking, in a very loud voice, if they have any books on science.
Tully_Beaver Posted February 21, 2005 Author Posted February 21, 2005 I get the impression you think you are speaking over everyone's head here' date=' Tully. Not at all. I am actually very humble. Just getting sick of having to repeat myself over and over The reason you're getting such uninformative posts ( I wasn't looking for information. I was looking to start a discusion and get some oppinions. ) is that you are aksing questions that are too broad ( to get definitive answers, in a thread you started without reading anything else that's already been posted. Didn't release u had to read a load of posts prior to posting. How many would be substantial? Please do yourself a favor and use the "Search" and "Search This Forum" tools at the top right and you will find that you are, in essence, walking into a library and asking, in a very loud voice, if they have any books on science. Couldn't disagree with u more. This is an internet FORUM not a library. Amazing how u can tell that I am using a louder voice (i'm actually not using a loud voice at all) than anyone else who has started a thread in this froum. I am not asking for any books on science. I am (was) in ESSENCE trying to start up a discusion. I will agree with u that "So what the F?" and "what h3ll is going on?" are pretty broad questions. However, "everything is made up of energy, right? " is not, and I think someone actually denied the fact that everything IS made up of energy. Also, at the end of my original post I included this "Anyone got any thoughts on this (should have had a question mark, it was late when I posted it) " and this "Just like to get some other opinions." Seeing how that might have confused some, I posted this (is this the third time I have cut and pasted this??)......... yeah' date=' sorry I wasn't very specific in my first post, the existence of the spirit world and the possibily of non-physical attributes accounting for re-incarnation, ghosts etc. is what I was getting at. I was thinking how if everything is made, held togther by energy then there could be kind of another "plane" where all that kinda stuff exists, a non-physical place. Anyone else have any thoughts or comments? [/quote'] once again .... I guess the answer to my original post is no, noone has any thoughts on this at all. What I really think the problem is, is people who are so anti "creationism" (I think that's the word someone used in another post) they need to shoot down any idea's or discusions with basic science. I can't see what the problem is, and I deff' can't see where science dissproves an afterlife.
Hellbender Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 yeah, sorry I wasn't very specific in my first post, the existence of the spirit world and the possibily of non-physical attributes accounting for re-incarnation, ghosts etc. is what I was getting at. one thing: I don't think anything like "the spirit world" has any evidence going for its existance. Sounds like this topic is right where it belongs.....
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Thanks for the reply. The way I'm looking at it is....matter is made of atoms' date=' which consists of n's, p's and e's, which in turn consist of all crazy kinds of quarks, which are energy. I don't think E=MC^2 dissporves that.[/quote'] Everything is not made of energy. It is made of matter. Matter can be converted to energy, as in E=MC², but they are not the same. They are interchangeable, but do not mix that up with "equal." Quarks are matter. They have mass, and energy does not. If you want, you can have a nuclear reaction and turn them into energy. But they are originally not energy.
Phi for All Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 Not at all. I am actually very humble. Just getting sick of having to repeat myself over and over. You're not alone.I wasn't looking for information. I was looking to start a discusion and get some oppinions.Which you proceeded to ignore as soon as they contradicted you.Didn't release u had to read a load of posts prior to posting. How many would be substantial?Some.Couldn't disagree with u more. This is an internet FORUM not a library. Amazing how u can tell that I am using a louder voice (i'm actually not using a loud voice at all) than anyone else who has started a thread in this froum. I am not asking for any books on science. I am (was) in ESSENCE trying to start up a discusion.It was an analogy. The library and voice references were analogous to coming to a science forum and proclaiming, "WTF? Everything's energy!" I will agree with u that "So what the F?" and "what h3ll is going on?" are pretty broad questions. However, "everything is made up of energy, right? " is not, and I think someone actually denied the fact that everything IS made up of energy. Also, at the end of my original post I included this "Anyone got any thoughts on this (should have had a question mark, it was late when I posted it) " and this "Just like to get some other opinions."You went from too broad to too specific, I guess. You mentioned a study of past lives and reincarnation but mentioned nothing of a physics nature. Are you tying the two together? I love when science and spirituality overlap. Seeing how that might have confused some, I posted this (is this the third time I have cut and pasted this??).........Quoting yourself is like doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.What I really think the problem is, is people who are so anti "creationism" (I think that's the word someone used in another post) they need to shoot down any idea's or discusions with basic science.No one dismissed you out of hand, with no explanation, and no one used an anti-Creationism argument. I can't see what the problem is, and I deff' can't see where science dissproves an afterlife.It hasn't disproven it in my mind, at least. Can we start again from here? Are you suggesting that our mental "energy" is released from our material body when we die? Where does that energy go, in your opinion?
Hellbender Posted February 21, 2005 Posted February 21, 2005 I said previously "there is no evidence". Thats different than saying "science disproves it".
Tully_Beaver Posted February 22, 2005 Author Posted February 22, 2005 I just spent ages typing a few (short) paragraphs with some of my ideas and when I went to post it it fell through and I lost them. So, if this gets through I wanted to say thanks to Phi_for_All for the reply. I don't have time right now to go through all that again. I will though.
Tully_Beaver Posted March 2, 2005 Author Posted March 2, 2005 What I was getting at is, when we die the energy that makes up us instead of leaving our body and becoming a whispy light like energy travelling around the physical world as a ghost, it passes over to a world made only of energy where time does not exist. I was suggesting that this energy world, or spirit world, exists inside and actually makes up matter. Of course there is a source of energy, of all energy, I guess this would be God. In this spirit world there would be individual spirits/ entities/ personalities. I'm not too sure how this would link to your consciousness when living as a human, but I do understand that people talk about their past lives when regressed to their subconscious. So, maybe consciousness we experience when living as a human is more influenced by the human animal instincts, like sexual lust etc. Just a couple of thoughts. I wish it hadn't gone scoo-whiff the other day, I had a really nice, well thought out essay typed , so this is just like I said a couple of thoughts. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any similar.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now