TED Conversations

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?

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 21 2013: Probably, but information does not survive once the brain is destroyed (i.e. dies). Depending on how you plan on being interred you will contribute more or less to the next cycle of existence.
    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.
    • Mar 21 2013: Gordon,
      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.
      • Mar 24 2013: There is a huge difference between organizing a coherent signal and broadcasting it as a transmitter and attempting to decode the signals that are produced in the operation of the transmitter. By that I mean it is impossible to decode what a transmitter is doing by examining the various electrical impulses that arise while the transmitter is creating the signal to transmit. Remove the antenna and it is incomprehensible.
        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.
        • Mar 25 2013: Gordon,

          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..?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.