# Is This Proof, There is Somthing After Death

1. Apr 10, 2008

### Eric DMC

In Einstein great equation E=Mc2, I believe there is proof of something after death in that famous equation. You are neither your body nor your brain; you are the electrical current running through your brain. Our brains allow us to store information, yet people live with damage brains. If our spark was to leave us, we would die.

But that spark or current of electricity can never die, Einstein proved that energy can never die or disappear, but it can change forms! So if there is a after life, we would not retain our previous life’s memories. So our spark will continue till the "end of time" in some form or another.

What do you think!

2. Apr 10, 2008

### Violator

You make a rather large assumption about what we "are". But I do agree that science shows there must be something after death. However, that something could very well just be the energy contained in our matter decomposing and being redistributed throughout the universe. It is no way implies that any part of the "I" we experience everyday would remain. Without knowing what the soul or mind consists of it is impossible to say whether laws related to energy and matter have any impact whatsoever on that substance.

3. Apr 10, 2008

### Eric DMC

I completely agree, I didn’t mean that our energy would be self aware!

4. Apr 11, 2008

### Violator

If the energy that composes us is not self-aware, does it make sense to call it "I"? How is it any more a part of me than the waste I pass in the morning, or the energy I expend while working out?

5. Apr 11, 2008

### baywax

The "spark" (energy) continues while "life" ends at death. The energy that supported a person's life while they were alive transforms upon death into a fertile pile of ashes or de-composing tissues.

This was proven recently when Beethoven's Tomb was excavated and they found Beethoven with a big eraser, erasing all his musical manuscripts. In exasperation they asked him what he was doing. Beethoven's only reply was... "de-composing".

6. Apr 11, 2008

### BobG

:rofl:

7. Apr 11, 2008

### Eric DMC

I see your point; the energy would no longer be "I," but the reminisce of what was once "I" would "forever" exist in one form or another.

8. Apr 11, 2008

### Werg22

Your argument has nothing to do with e = mc^2. All you did was to restate the principle of the conservation of energy.

9. Apr 11, 2008

### _Mayday_

How is all of this related to $$e=mc^2$$?

The theory sounds nice and pleasant, and it's a nice thought to think we will be here forever but, what is to say our energy will not be used by something such as a cow grazing on the grass under which we are buried?

10. Apr 11, 2008

### JoeDawg

Reminisce??

How would energy that was once in me be different from any other energy. It sounds like you are using 'energy' in one of those quacky holistic ways.

11. Apr 11, 2008

### Eric DMC

The reason for bring up E=Mc2 is that Energy can convert into matter and matter into energy! But you’re right I should not have phrased it to be based upon that equation.

12. Apr 11, 2008

### octelcogopod

Energy leaves and enters the body all the time, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and basically any other stuff you can think of.
Consciousness and self awareness is an emergent macroscopic property, one that is a side effect of the brain, body, and everything around.
Once the brain is dead, body is dead, there's no reason as of yet to believe the self will live on, or reminisce the old self.
During the course of many years, the former physical composition of the body will be gone, and the self gone, and the energy will have transfered elsewhere.

It's important to realize that just because the energy isn't destroyed, it does not follow that the 'I' is not destroyed.
The I is a macroscopic entity that's a composition of a lot of different types of energy..
Don't really even see a debate here..

13. Apr 11, 2008

No. Just no.