Science and God, What is to understsand

Hi everyone. Just wanted to see why we study so much other than our own world, if Iam correct.

Teri S died without food or water. And as scientist majors or physics majors, why couldn't we do something or find a way to prolong her life?
There have been many people who have played with death, but we just can't seem to stop death. Wouldn't it be great if we could stop it all together. Of course then we would be out balance..

Scientist study mars and water and human life on mars, but why can't we study the effects and try to solve a promblem concerning death.

I would appreciate your replies.
reisst4@inebraska.com

this isnt exactly a philosophical forum, but everytime someone starts talking about death, id like to slap em in the face first, and ask them

what is life?

We were, people just decided to stop prolonging her life. I personally agree with that decision, but that's probably just because I'm Dutch and we apparently kill off everthing, including babies.

You are giving your own answer. Another thing would be the overpopulation.

I thought we were; it's called medicine. Or Botox, liposuction, facelifts etc, etc if you're into that.

I think you need to first define what you mean by "world". Otherwise, the obvious answer will be "I don't know what you mean - we are exactly studying our own world, every single aspect of it, both right under our feet, and 50 billion light years away. It all impacts our world, which means we must study it if we are to understand this pile of dirt."

As far as letting her live - the question is improper. We were NOT letting her die. We were MAKING her live. The correct question, then is should we have continued to MAKE her live, or let the eventuality finally take place. I wish I had an answer, but I've not met her, nor am I qualified to speculate on her mental capabilities.

As far as everyone living forever, or at least not dying prematurely (and no, this does NOT apply to Terri's situation. It DOES apply to a big pile of others, however) - when we're down to our last breeding pair of idiots, THEN we should worry about protecting them. Until that date, though, they should be free to let Darwin to do his job. Death is a great motivator; the fear of an eminant threat has inspired some of our greatest achievements, only rivaled by our long-term fear of mortality, in general. It also does a great job of making sure we aren't enslaved to a bunch of jerks in power, who refuse to let the society's values evolve. If death had been eliminated in the 50s, we'd still be living like Ozzy and Harriet, Leave It to Beaver, and Happy Days. Racism would be just as visible today as it was back then, and women would not be allowed to have opinions. Why? Because my grandfather would still be alive, along with his views of "social order". I love the guy, but I love my society more without his views.

Careful, Sokkie - if you accidentally start a rivalry, Dubya might invade

Yeah, Holland on the Axis of Evil, right beside Iran, Syria and North Korea
All those windmills are actually camouflaged missle silo's filled with WMD's

Actually, it was in the news here some time ago that there is actually a worked out plan how to invade the Netherlands should the need arise; If you know our prime minister, you would be able to imagine him being a threat to anything; he's more of a grown up version of Harry Potter; look him up, J.P. Balkenende, and judge for yourself

I heard a good joke about bush's views regarding miss Schiavo. According to Dubya, brain death is no reason to stop feeding someone; he's just scared they'll cut off his food next

(If this is a breach of this forum's etiquette in some way or form, I'll be happy to remove it, no problem)

The so called Cheese Busters...

Who in hell is someone who thinks he should judge over whether to end or prolong a life that is not his own and that he even does not know at all??? This matter is ONLY of interest for the person itself and people who have a personal relationship to her! People should respect that, especially if they have an official government position... No natural death anymore? Welcome to hell. People killing themselves over water, food, social issues, territory, anarchy... everyone gets the world he requests. I prefer to think first about what I sell as soo compassionate and caring view. Prolonging life is an understandable, human, but very selfish view.

I guess this topic has nothing to do with 'applied physics'... but that does not seem to matter to any moderator.

MrSokkie....thank you. That was the best laugh I've had all day

It is interesting, that we discuss death with an assumed familiarity about it when we really have no knowledge of what death is, whatsoever. None.

Our "knowledge" of death is really knowledge about the dying process and the physical entity that is dead after the dying. But, of death itself, we have absolutely no information. In comparison with space research and exploration, in investigating death ... no "probe" has every returned or sent "back" information.

I agree that an intelligent discussion of real death, in a scientific perspective, could be useful. For instance: is there some state of "being" to us when memory is completely removed, when awareness is gone, when the physical attachment is no longer present? Those issues could be called metaphysical. But they are not, if they really investigated scientifically.

Isn't that called dreamless sleep? I'm not sure what you mean with physical attachment though.

The problem with researching what comes after death, you'll have a hard time avoiding assumptions like a soul and spirits and such, and those are things of religion, not science.s Sientifically we'll be set back in time about 10,000 years.

Reference to sleep in the context of death is in reality more of a literary metaphor. Sleep is a state of a living mind.

Refraining from pure research on death because there may be subjective considerations about souls, spirits or religion would regress us to the state of science during medieval times. Fortunately, we are now far past the dark ages of such constrictions. The investigation into death, should employ scientific discipline by people who have accepted that methodology.

As I mentioned above, I agree with Tierss that there should be real research into death. I think that it is appropriate either in continuing this topic or starting a new one here on this forum. The subject actually involves multi disciplines besides physics. But since it does involve physics at all it could be included in our forums here. If others do not want to pursue it here in this topic I'll be glad to introduce it as a new one or participate in the new topic concerning an investigation into death, by someone else.

Research example: Suppose this study is done by a group of participating terminally ill people: each one is given a computer-generated long alphanumeric number which they are asked to completely memorize. Naturally that is done when they are capable of performing that task. Then suppose each person goes through a carefully developed training to have that number reinforced thoroughly in their mind (and I mean thoroughly). Suppose further that only a computer record and that person know that number. After their death research is done on if and where each person's respective number appears anywhere. Their family is interviewed about their knowledge of the whole number or any substantial part of it. Research is done on the Internet to make sure that number does not appear in any information before their death and then if it appears in any information anywhere afterwards. If any person's number appears ... where did that happen. If it does, then we see if where it appeared had any further expression of their characteristics.

Oh come on, what's there to study about the human mind in death? There is none, since it requires the brain to function which it does not in death. Every professional philosopher in the last 100 years or so accepts the neurological connection between life and consciousness. Fields like thanatology and forensic science explore the physical aspects of death, but there is no viable reason to treat ghosts and such as if they were real. Your thought experiment is not sound realistically because a person couldn't possibly remember a long enough number that wouldn't appear elsewhere in the world. In terms of statisitcs, that long number does not imply life after death, even if the chances of finding it are extremely rare because you haven't proven the probability of life after death. It would have to be greater than the probability of finding that number in order to not be rubbed out using Occam's razor and for any valid conclusion to occur. Otherwise you're just comparing apples to oranges, logically speaking.

You are responding to a context of your own and not mine. I never suggested, to “study the human mind in death”. You state it yourself and then say it is impossible. Well, of course it is. How could we study a dead person’s mind?

Furthermore, once you dismiss the merit of a scientific study of death (not dying), that puts you in a bias position that precludes you from effectively participating in considering the methodology of how that study really should be conducted.

Your reference to Occam's razor is inaccurate too. It refers to two or more explanations, about something already known, i.e. how, it should be explained. In the case of death, we have no information, which needs any explanation, yet.

If there is no interest in such research then I’ll start it as a new topic and refrain from developing the idea further here. Any comments from anyone else, before I do that?

My bias doesn't detract from my argument, at least in this case. Besides, you're clearly more biased since it blinds your reason. And please read more carefully, I said Occam's razor would discount either the possibility of worldly communication after death or the possibility of coincidence if both were given probabilities. I'm not exactly sure if Occam's Razor was designed to apply to probabilities, though a corollary certainly should, and in any case my reasoning is based on an idea called the "prosecutor's fallacy" which has similar ramifications. Besides, what about the fact that a human mind couldn't remember a long number? To bypass that restriction you'd have to develop some way to enhance memory capacity - something that is just speculation with our current understanding of the brain, and who knows when we'll be able to find a way?

Hi there everyone,

I havent laughed so much in a long time. Great posts. Full of real thoughts, enough to launch a lungful of laughter. So good I registered immediately.

I'm also interested in some serious gutsy physics and philosophical rumbling.

Paul

Hi to the fun group of the Forum,

This is the first thread of this kind I have seen in a long, long time?

I was wondering if someone can answer this for me, I have wonder about it when I found out the sky was made of sun's, light years away, and they were not just lights in the heavens. And then came Quantum and Classical which gave me so many different perspectives, not including Super Strings, Parallel Worlds, etc.

This creative universe and that might evoke a response, (creative), but let me move on, why if there is one, would He care if we could prove HIM or not. I do not think a GOD has an ego!

Just thinking, HE is secretive I believe, He does not want us to know how He works, and could we understand if He told us? If there is a GOD then why would he bother to leave a number, when he has given us reason, math, science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.? Like what could He tell us that we would not destroy or take out of context?

I like what I heard one day, so no matter how you see things, did He leave us alone I cannot answer that, are we alone - I can not answer that for you as well and will not try to, it is a requisite to a seeking spirit and the sky as a child when I would look up into night after night wondering? So I take each day, one breath at a time!

Hope someone on this fun page can come up with the answer, I would love to know!

Keep having fun,
yquantum