TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 21 2013: Why not keep religion and science separate? Do you really believe that a tree falling in the woods makes no noise if no one hears it? Myself - I sort of like the Stoics and Meister Eckhart. Wait - that's not what you were talking about, but maybe that's the point. Remember that Einstein was very religious - Of course, Little Al from Princeton had other interests, and he did avoid the Presidency of Israel. Was the Buddha really what we would call religious in America? He sought to avoid reincarnation. You and he both have thought he was not reincarnated. So how great is the disagreement really? Armand McGill contends information in India used to be transmitted in ways beyone the normal five(5) senses. Okay - I'm not going to buy into some psuedophenomonology, but I do believe that we and all are parts of a whole. I don't know if that makes one a Stoic or Gnostic or reader of Meister Eckhart, but it makes sense to me. Maybe I get stuck in part of the Rig Veda, and i don't quite catch up with Mithrah and Mitra and Zoraster and Constantine the Great and Akenaten except when I do. Einstein tells us "religion is not for nothing." Except he probably said it in German.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.