Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

[Brian37]

What if we're in a simulation? Can the programmer program us to have life after death?

I am sorry, but this logic fails for the same reason the claim of an All Powerful, always existing god fails.

If humans are a product of a "programmer" then what created that programmer, and what created that programmer. Infinite regress applies, I don't care if one is claiming a god, or some si fi version of a invisible cognition. Both beg the question.

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts, I'd be dating Angelina Jolie. 

Christopher Hitchens, " That which can be asserted without evidence, can just as easily be dismissed without evidence." 

I don't like seeing well intended people who rightfully reject the anthropomorphic human projections of gods of antiquity try to replace the old claims with si fi claims. 

If one rightfully rejects the human like gods of antiquity then it makes no sense to try to replace those claims with "we have some invisible super programmer". It is just a si fi version of old mythology.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Even if you theoretically think of reconstruction of one type of consciousness (my grand father), you cannot possibly theoretically come up with a way of reconstruction of a different consciousness (me or some other guy) since some of the same particles were used to make up both consciousness in two separate living beings at two different spacetime coordinates but since same matter manifested itself in two different set of information in two different spacetime coordinates, it is no longer unique universally. In other words, my consciousness is not a unique thing universally speaking. It is only unique within the coordinates of spacetime where I exist. But the very basis of reconstitution of consciousness implies that it is universal and trumps spacetime (my grand father's consciousness should be reconstructed as should be mine equally at the same time).  This creates a paradox that's impossible to overcome.

I think it is a problem insofar as you ascribe personal identity to individual particles. And although we don't shed and replace neurons the way we do skin cells (and the blood-brain-barrier exists) brains are not chemically stagnant: chemicals already exchange in and out of the brain; microglia already heal and repair neurons; and there are already parts of the brain where neurogenesis occurs.

In other words, although I agree with the problem you've described (that the same particles can be recycled in two different brains), it is also true that the brain is already not completely static and does recycle and exchange chemicals on its own while you are alive. I think we simply don't know enough neuroscience to understand how a person maintains continuity of identity despite all the changes that occur naturally. And I'm sure there are people who would argue that we don't―that we are a different person every day.

[Brian37]

Even if you theoretically think of reconstruction of one type of consciousness (my grand father), you cannot possibly theoretically come up with a way of reconstruction of a different consciousness (me or some other guy) since some of the same particles were used to make up both consciousness in two separate living beings at two different spacetime coordinates but since same matter manifested itself in two different set of information in two different spacetime coordinates, it is no longer unique universally. In other words, my consciousness is not a unique thing universally speaking. It is only unique within the coordinates of spacetime where I exist. But the very basis of reconstitution of consciousness implies that it is universal and trumps spacetime (my grand father's consciousness should be reconstructed as should be mine equally at the same time).  This creates a paradox that's impossible to overcome.

I think it is a problem insofar as you ascribe personal identity to individual particles. And although we don't shed and replace neurons the way we do skin cells (and the blood-brain-barrier exists) brains are not chemically stagnant: chemicals already exchange in and out of the brain; microglia already heal and repair neurons; and there are already parts of the brain where neurogenesis occurs.

In other words, although I agree with the problem you've described (that the same particles can be recycled in two different brains), it is also true that the brain is already not completely static and does recycle and exchange chemicals on its own. I think we simply don't know enough neuroscience to understand how a person maintains continuity of identity despite all the changes that occur naturally. And I'm sure there are people who would argue that we don't―that we are a different person every day.

There is not one single atom in you now, that was in you as a sperm or egg, or even a fetus or baby when you were born.

Life is literally a constant exchange of atoms. Your brain is like the rest of your body, constantly passing atoms around like an Olympic relay race, eventually having the atoms cycled out of your body. As long as the organ is in tact and healthy, it is  a relay race like passing a baton in which each runner "atom" does not stay in the race(body) forever. 

Biological life can be thought of like a living fractal. Constantly changing, never staying the same, new participants passing the baton in the race and leaving after a short time, but keeping the structure in tact, like a bridge, as long as new construction workers come in to replace them. But even with that constant turnover, that relay race, construction can't last forever. That is why all life dies, even if the atoms move on to other events.

[Irreligious Atheist]

What if we're in a simulation? Can the programmer program us to have life after death?

I am sorry, but this logic fails for the same reason the claim of an All Powerful, always existing god fails.

If humans are a product of a "programmer" then what created that programmer, and what created that programmer. Infinite regress applies, I don't care if one is claiming a god, or some si fi version of a invisible cognition. Both beg the question.

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts, I'd be dating Angelina Jolie. 

Christopher Hitchens, " That which can be asserted without evidence, can just as easily be dismissed without evidence." 

I don't like seeing well intended people who rightfully reject the anthropomorphic human projections of gods of antiquity try to replace the old claims with si fi claims. 

If one rightfully rejects the human like gods of antiquity then it makes no sense to try to replace those claims with "we have some invisible super programmer". It is just a si fi version of old mythology.

The programmer idea is nothing like the God idea. If there's a programmer, they are likely living in a simulation of their own. At some point though, there is base reality which was not created by anyone, so it's nothing fantastical at all like God claims.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Nope. That's not how science works. Often scientists will come up with a guess and then try to find the evidence. We can dismiss it all we like, but that doesn't mean there's not a chance we're living in a simulation. The real question is can a simulation as complex as our universe exist. Scientists/ programmers are split on whether a simulation like this can even be created, but if such a simulation can possibly be created, it follows that we can say that the odds of us not being in a simulation are one in billions, because there would be far more simulated universes than there would be real universes at base reality. I have no idea whether a simulation as complex as our universe could ever be created though, so I don't really lean one way or the other, but I'm very open to the possibility that we're living in a simulation.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. Actually it is due to have zero evidence to support it 

2. You have no understanding of science at all. Science doesn't just make shit up on the vague premise it might be true then engages in confirmation bias trying to confirm their pet speculation. Your confusing science with theology. God no wonder you believe in so much stupid shit.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Science is conjecture and refutation. Scientists are not skeptics nor absolutists―they are creative, curious, and open-minded. This is why Sean Carroll's comments sound un-scientific even if his position turns out to be correct.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Science is conjecture and refutation. 

No, it's not

Scientists are not skeptics

Yes they are 

 nor absolutists

Depends on what you mean absolutists nor does one need to be an  absolutist to meet the condition I layout above 

they are creative, curious, and open-minded. 

Irrelevant to my point 

This is why Sean Carroll's comments sound un-scientific even if his position turns out to be correct.

Sean Carroll and no his statements are indeed scientific and likely correct

[Brian37]

Science is conjecture and refutation. Scientists are not skeptics nor absolutists―they are creative, curious, and open-minded. This is why Sean Carroll's comments sound un-scientific even if his position turns out to be correct.

Um no, science is not "conjecture". It is a method. 

If one wants to argue that "scientists" disagree, that is a different subject. But the method is the concept of testing, observation, and peer review.

[Belacqua]

Um no, science is not "conjecture". It is a method. 

Conjecture is part of the method.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Um no, science is not "conjecture". It is a method. 

Karl Popper's conjectures and refutations is Science 101.