Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How's this logic

  1. Dec 4, 2006 #1
    I can't remember how many times i've heard people say that after you die there's nada, nothing. Well, how about this logic.

    There was a time when the universe didn't exist (before the big bang). Perhaps before you were born you didn't exist, you were nothing. And yet now your reading this and your alive...

    That clearly demonstrates that something can come from nothing. Even after your bones are dust, even after the universe dies, life can come into existence again from nothing. I think the mere fact that you are conscious now proves that life is eternal. Remeber that what comes after death is what came before death.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2006 #2
    Don't use the indirect assumption that "life came out of nothing." There isn't really a way for it come out of "nothing." According to evolution, life came about when gravity, electromagnetic force, and other forces clumped particles together. Then, plasma hit it and it 'somehow' created the propoerty we call life. So, life didn't come out of nothing, it came from something. A better question is "how did a living entity come from a nonliving entity?"

    When one dies, their particles could come and reform to become part of life again (by atoms). But does this mean that 'you' actually are 'born again'? No, it simply means your particles are being recycled into something else.

    I don't see how consciousness proves life is eternal. When something dies, its particles can be recycled into another living organism or it could become permenant inorganic substance. But something like birth does not happen when particles are recycled. If an atom of one of your cell's phosopholipid bilayer somehow became part of another organism, than that doesn't mean that the atom's previous owner has come alive again.
     
  4. Dec 5, 2006 #3

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Also sounds like you're presuming that the arrow of time in the form of entropy has no preferred direction.

    i.e. Since broken glass and spilled milk on the floor was once a full glass of milk on the counter, it stands to reason that it can be a full glass of milk again in the future.
     
  5. Dec 5, 2006 #4
    I like to think of it this way. I didn't exist before and it didn't bother me. I exist now and it doesn't bother. Therefore death and not existing again isn't too bad. How can you prove that you only get one life anyways? I do not believe in God, however I believe this. Once we die, we recycle back into the earth. We are decomposed and our death brings new life. Are we in a way that life? I doubt it and I'm not sure but here's the thing:

    If there is ever another life, it would begin instantly after your death, even if it takes billions of years. Without the mind, we have no concept of time or anything else, therefore during the "void" of our death, it passes by quicker than a blink. One day our sun will explode then EVENTUALLY become a nebula. Then once again, another star and planets will reform and take shape again. Is it possible that "we" will exist again? I think yes and no. I think yes, it is possible to become concious once again, however you will not be the same person as before. There will be no spiritual connection or anything like that...

    Anyways that's my opinion.
     
  6. Dec 5, 2006 #5
    Life consists of the same energy that all things consist of in the universe. Therefore, exactly like energy (because life = energy), life can neither be created nor destroyed. We are incapable, at this time, of realizing this fact and so, as far as we can perceive, we die, get born and make wars and books about things we think are important. Such is life.
     
  7. Dec 27, 2006 #6
    i agree to the fact that you cant create something from nothing
    that doesnt make sense both physically as well as spiritually.
    but what id like to know is that what is the direction of time
    if anyone can explain me that then maybe i have cooked up a theory to explain some stuff
     
  8. Dec 30, 2006 #7
    The direction of time is always forward and never backward because you never have a reaction before the action. ie; you always get the reaction after the action hence the direction is forward.

    Quote from aeroboyo : " before you were born you didn't exist, you were nothing. And yet now your reading this and your alive...
    That clearly demonstrates that something can come from nothing. "

    I don't really get how you come up with that, You are not born out of nothing, you were a set up molecoules before you were born (about 9 months before) and a set of atoms even before that. Yet its not correct to talk about the past before that 9 months as being you... but anyway.
    I guess you are having a confusion because of conciousness... Yes you were not concious before you were born & those set of molecoules are just going to have a very little conciousness relative to you writing this thread.
     
  9. Dec 30, 2006 #8
    Well that depends on your spirituality, Taoists would argue otherwise.

     
  10. Dec 31, 2006 #9

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Uh, well unless you consider virtual particles.
     
  11. Jan 7, 2007 #10
    Can you prove they exist?
     
  12. Jan 8, 2007 #11

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you're looking for "proof" of anything, then physics isn't your field.
     
  13. Jan 8, 2007 #12
    Some analysis on your logic

    Your title suggests that you want someone to analyse your logic. I have taken the time to break down your reasoning and comment on it, but let me know if you didn't really want this.

    There are different models of the universe in physics. Some have the universe as a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, where you don't need a beginning. Some models have a beginning of the universe where a "time before the beginning" isn't meaningful because time was created as a part of the big bang. Although I have heard some strong opinions in the past from physicists, I have never really understood why there couldn't have been a time before the big bang. There is probably an open debate here so you could be right.

    I think this is sound enough :smile:

    Yup :smile:

    Ah, I'm not sure it does. Everything may have come from nothing. It may have come from a previous big crunch. Everything may have come from a different sort of something. We don't know, although I think a lot of atheists would agree that everything came from nothing at this point.

    Maybe, who knows? Some physicists believe the universe will end in a big freeze or a big rip. This could mean there isn't really going to be anywhere for life to pop up again.

    I disagree, our consciousness isn't a watertight proof that life is eternal. A lot of conscious people seem to think that life is temporary. We could take it as a piece of evidence but not a proof :rolleyes:

    Maybe. I can't really tell easily. The only way to find out is to actually die and I don't fancy that right now :wink:
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2007
  14. Feb 10, 2007 #13
    That statement is empty, if you cling on to the idea that space,time and matter so to say "began" at the big bang, there was no time "before" the big bang.

    (wether or not your description of the big bang is right or wrong, is a different discussion).
     
  15. Feb 10, 2007 #14

    -Job-

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I agree, the problem is more with a mix of "existing again" and some bad luck.
     
  16. Feb 12, 2007 #15
    you would like Nietzsche eternal return parable. but then again, he did not even believed in atoms.
     
  17. Apr 13, 2007 #16
    If you write a latter, and then burns it. Whats left from it, and the energy it created is the same information but in an other encryption. Theoreticaly you can take whats left from this latter, the energy and decrypt it and see that information.

    "When we die" This "WE" meant to be "ME", whats that "ME"?
    Its our consciousness, the spirit or the way you want to call it. If you duplicate it, and make a computer with the ability to think the way you did, to have the same consciousness as you did, this computer will be you, ressurected. It will be your "ME"... There are infinite probabilities and chances that sometime, somewhere there will be a creature with the same consciousness as you did, maybe it will take billions of billions of billions of years but still there are infinite chances, therefore it will happen sooner or later.
     
  18. Apr 17, 2007 #17
    So where the "something" cames from? Before it in order to form a life

    Well, I'm not disagree with the statement above.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 17, 2007
  19. Apr 17, 2007 #18
    To a person like your self I would recommend reading the good book. I know religion isn't for everyone but you seem like the kind of guy that could be a clergy man of some sort.
     
  20. Apr 17, 2007 #19
    No, you cannot prove "they" exist, you can only prove that you exist--using the logic of Descartes--the cogito:

    I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (Med. 2, AT 7:25) R. Descartes.
     
  21. Apr 18, 2007 #20

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Simply put:

    Argument 1
    Premise: we humans have a "soul", a "me" that is more than the sum of our atoms. It will go on after our death.
    Logical deduction: there is a supernatural presence in the universe, and that's the source of our livingness-from-nonlivingness

    Argument 2
    Premise: We do not have a soul. Our "me"-ness is a product of the interactions of 10 trillion neurons.
    Logical Deduction: Life came from the ever-increasing complexity of organic molecules and has no more to it than that.


    Conclusion: decide whether you believe there is more to your existence than an extremely complex chemical process, and you will have your answer as to how life came from non-life.
     
  22. Apr 19, 2007 #21
    Is it reasonable to say that the universe is conscious and exists infinitely? That consciousness exists at a molecular level?
    Has anyone read any David Darling? I like his logic. A few of his books are online at his website.
    Either your mind creates consciousness or channels it, right? The latter seems more logical to me. Especially when you get into Quantum Physics.
    But I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not a college student yet and I'm just going off of books I've read. =D
     
  23. Apr 23, 2007 #22
    hey
    have anyone read this book by DUGLAUS HOFSTADER
    or thats how his name is
    the book is titled "GEB [ godel,escher,bach] the eternal golden braid"
    although i couldnt understand much of it in the first read
    the way he thinks is pretty good
    about how we become ME
    about the I factor
     
  24. Apr 24, 2007 #23
    I find this question very mind boggling, and really fun to think about. This concious mind I have, to my knowledge, has existed for twenty some odd earth years. After I die, my body will decompose into simpler and simpler states of matter. The electrons that are in my body at this given moment will find their way to the far reaches of space. I will not exist as I am in this body. If I have a spirit, then the possiblilties after death of the physical form are limitless, and I will most likely be wrong, should I try and understand what existance will be like after I have passed on, for I will be given keys to doors I don't even know exist now.
    But should their be no soul, I can see 'me' as easily being a collective 'us'. After all, my parents supplied the blueprint to create me but I am not only from my mother and father but of the animal I eat, the air I breath, and the heat I absorb. An electron does not stay in one place for long, or at all. So I am just many other things that change form to upkeep 'me', concious mind. When I die, I will never exist again. The only possibility I can see of existing again would be if someone were to find and construct every single bit of information that composed me at a given moment, and only the piece of that single moment. Every electron and every quark. Maybe I wouldn't need what composed my legs, but what ever makes my concious thought 'me' at this moment. Only then could I begin information transfer again, but I would of course not remember what happened to me after that moment in the past. Kind of rewriting my future.
    Anyways, back to my idea of an 'us'. Once I have died, parts of me will surely compose new creatures who will walk earth or some other planet. Though my concious mind, which is a one time thing, will never interact with the universe again, everything that made it up will contribute to the development of new minds elsewhere. Since in this theory the mind and life is nothing more than beautiful chemical reactions which make matter aware of itself, then together, we are Universe. In an essence, we are God. And when we are searching desprately through this life for an omnipotent being, all we are really doing is looking for the rest of ourself. The rest of 'us'.

    Another idea I like, but isn't completely origional thought, is that we are each our own universe, much different from the one we observe, that must latch onto the one we interact with to inport and export information. Once we die we may become isolated until our universe starts interacting with another.
     
  25. Apr 24, 2007 #24
    I read what the guy above me wrote right after typing that whole thing... I think I'll check the book out.
     
  26. Apr 25, 2007 #25
    The form of "you" not existing at one point in time then existing at another doesn't imply that "something" came from "nothing". I suggest you either formalize this a bit more or look into http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/" [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook