This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
If certain scientific laws remain consistent, is reincarnation / rebirth logical?
The theory of relativity E=MC^2 indicates that energy can be converted into matter. Energy can also be neither created nor destroyed. Due to the fact that these principles seem to hold true within the infinite nature of math, physics, and the universe, is re-incarnation not a logical idea based on our current level of understanding? For example, if when i die my energy can never be destroyed, and can be converted into mass, would there not be an instant within this infinite cycle that my energy will convert to mass and replay every possible scenario of existence possible?
Casey Christofaris 10+
Gordon Barker 10+
For example, if you are buried in a hermetically sealed casket, you will probably become soap and stay removed from the environment for several hundred years.
If you plan on being cremated, you can immediately be useful to grit the walk when its icy.
You can be killed and eaten by a bear, drown and be eaten by fish, or be lost in the wilderness and become fertilizer for plants.
Information (that is what you probably think of as yourself) does not survive this transition back to remedial matter so no - reincarnation and rebirth are not logical regardless of what you may think relativity may offer.
daniel hehir 20+
It's a mistake to think that your thoughts and feelings, memories, etc. are all lodged away in your physical brain. Rupert Sheldrake gives a good example of this. It goes like this. The brain is like a radio or TV set. You don't think that the program your watching is coming from the TV itself do you. Nor can you go back to the TV the next day and find any trace of the program within the physical parts of the TV. ... Who am I to tell you that there are radio waves coming from a far off place sending invisible signals through the air that your watching and listening to. If you damage a tube in the TV, the picture does not come through, but the signal is still there. The brain is more like a sense organ for thought. .. an antenna if you will.
Sheldrake was recently deleted from youtube recently by TEDx as being unscientific. You can find some discussions going on here and the lecture if you google it.
Gordon Barker 10+
There is now and never has been any indication that the brain has a section that creates a coherent signal for transmission.
Nor is there any indication that there is a section of the brain that can receive a signal and decompose it into coherent thought.
Experiments to identify such a process have not shown any result.
I have looked at Sheldrake's work and my conclusion is that his theories are unfalsifiable, his experimental technique very suspect and most of his data cherry picked to suit his own purposes.
Experiments that have been done correctly do not show the predicted result.
A real scientist would start looking for a better theory rather than claiming to be a visionary who is being persecuted.
This guy is a scientific hack of the worst kind.
daniel hehir 20+
The allegory with the TV set is not pointing to the "sender or receiver" within the physical brain. .. but the signal itself. The spiritual element of the human being as existing free from the physical brain.
The idea that "thoughts themselves" are "signals" that travel upon what Sheldrake calls the "morphic field" is nothing new. Esoterics have been saying exactly this for a few hundred years. So Sheldrake is picking up on this same phenomena and has given it a new name, one that sound more scientific ... I don't know much at all about Sheldrake. Never heard of him before I came over this big discussion on TED about him. It would be interesting to hear more of what you weren't satisfied with from his research.
That the brain might be a sense organ for thought rather than a creator of thought is an interesting postulate.
Should it ever be confirmed (via NDE for example) that the human being does in fact have a spiritual body that survives the death of the physical body, ...then .. it isn't such a big step to postulate that thoughts themselves arise from another place than the physical brain. If it could it be proven true that the spirit can exist free from the physical body, then why can't thoughts also exist free from the physical body..?
Luke Anderson
daniel hehir 20+
It may be that in the far distant future that we can actually develop tools to measure consciousness. I have even heard of some people managing to contact spirit beings on the computer ....
I think our tools are far too "physical" But I also think that we have it in our own ability to make contact with souls that have crossed over the threshold. If one is open to such ideas. That this realm at all exists. There is not much room in the materialistic sciences of the day for such ideas. Although there are some asking such questions.
I think that NDE will one day prove this realm of existence. ... That our consciousness survives physical death.
daniel hehir 20+
To try to apply physical laws to a spiritual state of existence is in my mind already starting off on the wrong foot.
Why should we at all need to explain a purely spiritual state of "consciousness" in weights and measures that only can apply to the physical side of existence. I read a comment here about the " weight of the soul when one dies" It's an absurdity to think of the soul or spirit in that way.
But the theory of evolution, drawn out to its furthest consequence, would be only natural to say that the spiritual part of our being evolves and develops just as our physical part evolves and develops.
When you die, your consciousness continues on in another form / plane of existence. It does come back to the earth, again and again in another human form. Not an animal form. That would be evolving backwards.
Rupert Sheldrake is (or was) a pretty hot item on TED these days. He has be censored off TED. He has some interesting things to say. . . You might not find him on TED though. Search the net or youtube. Otherwise there are lot of other interesting things about reincarnation.
Faisel Butt
Despite the famous claim of the soul weighing 21 grams a weight loss hasn't been detected. Thus according to your own logic reincarnation does not take place.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Gail . 50+
Kate Blake 50+
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation01.html
A leading Psychiatrist who has done 40 years of research on reincarnation, please check it out and challenge your views?
And Dr Kenneth Ring a Professor of Psychology who researched near death experiences and found that reincarnation was a real possibility.
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts04.html
Gail . 50+
I've also had experiences that I believe were alternate-life awareness - but nothing detailed enough for me to go back and check out. I wish I had thought to ask the young boy some detailed questions.
george lockwood 30+
Frank Barry
The theory of relativity E=MC^2 is only a theory. Not necessarily a truth. Not something I would bet on.
There are many theories in the world. They probably contain energy themselves. A semi-colon or just
a period both contain energy to be converted. Do these theories convert the energies themselves,
or sub-contract the process. We can only guess about these things.
Ole' Einstein was a wily animal. He grew up a normal kid, but had that job in the patent office, where he
read other peoples patents. What a wonderful way to get ahead in life. Read, think and grow rich.
So my answer is No.
===
For some 2,000 years now, governments and religious organizations have hidden away peoples ideas
for the advancement of humankind. Today, copy-writes and patents protect the intellectual properties
of others. It is big business world-wide. It also slows down the advancement of humankind.
Many governments impose penalties for the actual creation of ideas.
Using ideas of others without permission of the supposed creator could result in fines and jail.
During the inquisition, scientists were tortured and killed by their church(s) and government(s).
===
But, Luke, don't stop. Keep asking questions. We all need to see the light.
Faisel Butt
Both of Einstein's theories of relativity have been tested thoroughly. For instance your GPS wouldn't work without taking account for time dilation caused by gravity and relative motion.
Frank Barry
You are right. But it is a narrow piece of pie.
You may be wrong in your reliance upon the "well-confirmed" part.
Like Newton and many other Scientist-adventurers, Einstein's theories
leave much to be desired. Much that "may or may not" be shot down in
future generations.
I have a hard time acknowledging the good in Einstein.
In my lifetime, too many people have died because of ideas he supported.
ZX Style 20+
I am not a believer of reincarnation, but let's test your theory.
If you entirely belief that your behavior and character is based on your DNA and chemicals, then no reincarnation is not possible. Because once your dead and underground your brain and memory will become soil..
The energy is indeed not destroyed but is has transformed to soil or food for worms.
If you however believe that your soul exists as some sort of electronic cloud then this energy might be preserved after dead.
For the present science has not been able to prove this last claim, so i'd go for the No it's not possible.
Luke Anderson
Frank Barry
Consider,
We do not know what actually is happening in the universe.
Theories only.
The universe is unknown to humans.
Nothing is proven that the Big Bang is real.
Energy might or might not be infinite.
The speed of light may be unrestrained,
We know so little and guess so much.
No one has come back from death to dance a jig.
(Except of course in religious books and tales.)
Laws of Physics and valid ideas are true, until their not.
Newton's law is taught today in schools.
It is wrong.
Everyone knows it is wrong.
But, it works in the classroom to get the point across.
Why bother to try and teach something that is really hard to learn,
if it will never be used and quickly be forgotten.
ZX Style 20+
Yes Luke it is true that the energy you had in your brain might become rock or planet or whatever.
But i don't think that equates reincarnation.
When you believe the big bang, you know that energy did not existed before that bang.
So that makes the prevailing of energy a non valid idea..
Frank Barry
You've won the HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD award.
Thank you.