Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

[Apollo]

That's not what he is claiming. He is claiming that the laws of physics that govern our REALITY are completely understood and he is correct.

For rest of the post, see my previous response.  There is no fundamental property called "consciousness" at particle level - the leavel at which our reality is transformed from underlying quantum fields. Since all biological system eventually decay into particles, the consciousness, which may exist at emergent biological brain level, stops being existed back at particles level. He is making the claim informed by scientific facts. He's being scientific.

I don't agree.

Gravity is certainly a part of physics that govern our REALITY. And clearly we DON'T fully understand it. It has been clear for quite some time that general relativity is coming up short. It doesn't work at the quantum level. The behavior of the Pioneer probe doesn't gel with predictions. Now there is the dark energy thing - which we have no idea of the nature of. Is it real? Or is our understanding of gravity incomplete? Might general relativity be an approximation in the same way we now know Newtonian mechanics is?

It is almost always a mistake to make absolute statements of the type Dr. Carroll is. It's also counter productive. What's the point of it? It's impossible to defend.

Right. So we don't fully understand it or more precisely have its quantum counterpart (graviton) discovered that we predict should exist based on our understanding of nature so far but we do have hypothesis BASED ON that very understanding of laws of nature that may (or may not) result in verification through observation/prediction/experimentation. But regardless, the key point remains, we have some basis on which we are able to posit hypothesis.

We do not have any such basis to posit there is a fundamental property called "consciousness" that excitations in quantum field manifest. We can make up all kind of stuff and say that could be a fundamental property of particles but it would just be a made up stuff without any BASIS.  e.g. I can say, each electrons have tails. Nothing stopping me saying that. But what are my basis for saying it? Tails are legitimate emergent biological phenomenon but do they exist at particle level? There is no manifestation of a tail-like behavior at particle level that either has entered our observation space or answers some tail-dependent questions that we could hypothesize to say, we theorize tail to be a fundamental property so let's go do some experimentation to detect particle tails.

We do not have any such BASIS to see "consciousness" is being fundamental property.

---

That's not what he is claiming. He is claiming that the laws of physics that govern our REALITY are completely understood and he is correct.

For rest of the post, see my previous response.  There is no fundamental property called "consciousness" at particle level - the leavel at which our reality is transformed from underlying quantum fields. Since all biological system eventually decay into particles, the consciousness, which may exist at emergent biological brain level, stops being existed back at particles level. He is making the claim informed by scientific facts. He's being scientific.

I don't agree.

Gravity is certainly a part of physics that govern our REALITY. And clearly we DON'T fully understand it. It has been clear for quite some time that general relativity is coming up short. It doesn't work at the quantum level. The behavior of the Pioneer probe doesn't gel with predictions. Now there is the dark energy thing - which we have no idea of the nature of. Is it real? Or is our understanding of gravity incomplete? Might general relativity be an approximation in the same way we now know Newtonian mechanics is?

It is almost always a mistake to make absolute statements of the type Dr. Carroll is. It's also counter productive. What's the point of it? It's impossible to defend.

Sorry forgot to address the dark energy part.  Right. So not only dark energy (although most physicists agree it's vacuum energy and mathematically is the same as Einstein's cosmological constant that he had when he thought universe is static but now we know for sure that it's actually expanding and accelerating), but there is also dark matter that we don't know what it is. But we have some BASIS to theorize what it could be.

But dark energy and dark matter still DO NOT govern our reality - they manifest at galactic and intra-galactic/cosmic levels but not planetary or smaller levels. So when we are talking about galaxies and galaxy clusters, we can talk all about dark energy and dark matter but when we are talking about planets or us on earth, dark matter or energy don't mean squat to our reality as they don't interact at that level. Dark matter, whatever particle it is made of, passes right through us without any causal activity.

So just because we don't know some stuff does not mean it chalks out the stuff we know for sure.