Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

[Fake Messiah]

Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

one scientist thinks he knows the answer: life after death simply isn’t possible.

Dr. Sean Carroll, a cosmologist and physics professor at the California Institute of Technology, earlier said his finding is based on physics. ‘The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood,’ he said, as per the Express, explaining there is no facility for life after death.

‘Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die.’

More specifically, he’s based his claims on Quantum Field Theory, a mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics – in extraordinarily simple terms, it means there’s one field for every type of particle, whether it’s photons, electrons or anything else.

However, there’s no ‘spirit particles’ or ‘spirit forces’ for consciousness being separated from one’s body, he says. ‘If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model,’ Carroll added.

https://www.unilad.co.uk/science/life-af...ntist/amp/

[no one]

But, but, but, muh huly buuk. Surely a conflicting, inconsistent hodgepodge of ancient text pieced together by scientifically inept troglodytes is more on point on the subject. After all, it gives me comfort, knowing just how super duper special I am.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But, but, but, muh huly buuk. Surely a conflicting, inconsistent hodgepodge of ancient text pieced together by scientifically inept troglodytes is more on point on the subject. After all, it gives me comfort, knowing just how super duper special I am.

Agreed. Why should we listen to physicists about physics? Personally, I think that a semiliterate preacher who can’t count past ten with his boots on is a MUCH more creditable source.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

Agreed. Why should we listen to physicists about physics?

He's a physicist speaking on neuroscience and biology—that's strange. The article is rather short; perhaps he makes a better argument elsewhere.

[brewer]

Magic is beyond the "standard model".

I win.

[Apollo]

Agreed. Why should we listen to physicists about physics?

He's a physicist speaking on neuroscience and biology—that's strange. The article is rather short; perhaps he makes a better argument elsewhere.

You do realize that physics is the fundamental discipline of science and other sciences like chemistry and subsequently, biology emerge from it. At the end of the day it’s all about matter, and taken further down, about quantum fields—matter is simply excitations in those fields.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Agreed. Why should we listen to physicists about physics?

He's a physicist speaking on neuroscience and biology—that's strange. The article is rather short; perhaps he makes a better argument elsewhere.

Not nearly as strange as Rev. Joe Thumbfingers with a ‘degree’ in Bible studies opining about cosmology.

Carroll’s written tonnes. Have a google.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

You do realize that physics is the fundamental discipline of science and other sciences like chemistry and subsequently, biology emerge from it.

Fundamental is not synonymous with comprehensive. The cognitive sciences debate the nature and definition of consciousness to the same or greater degree that the biological sciences debate the nature and definition of life. For a physicist to add anything of value to these conversations he should first give a physics-derived definition of life and consciousness.

"Physicist" here is just a flashy way of saying "trust him he's a scientist." News outlets love to report on fMRI studies for the same reason, despite most cognitive scientists considering them of limited insight.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We need a "Well, Duh" award similar to the Nobels, but with a box of Milk Duds as the prize.

[brewer]

Fundamental is not synonymous with comprehensive. The cognitive sciences debate the nature and definition of consciousness to the same or greater degree that the biological sciences debate the nature and definition of life. For a physicist to add anything of value to these conversations he should first give a physics-derived definition of life and consciousness.

"Physicist" here is just a flashy way of saying "trust him he's a scientist." News outlets love to report on fMRI studies for the same reason, despite most cognitive scientists considering them of limited insight.

Can you/the religious give a definition of afterlife and provide evidence of existence, ........evidence that most of us will accept?

Existence of a story does not count.