How accurate is my inferential proof of Reincarnation?

Post Reply New Topic

I have posted this on another thread, but I think the flow of that thread has prevented any attention towards it.

"Physics supports the notion of reincarnation.

For instance, 'nothing' is inherently unstable. The early universe which contained nothing was actually physically biased towards 'something.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... rs-origin/

As Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can attest towards, that is why I do not believe that there is endless nothingness when I pass away, because nothing is an uncertain abstraction. Once you give nothing a meaning, it becomes something..

Just because we don't remember a previous life, doesn't mean that it did not occur. Likewise, when I pass away does not mean that I will not be somewhere else."

Broken link on first post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... rs-origin/

What do you mean by 'reincarnation'?

My problem with the idea is where all the new souls come from.

Accurately deluded.

The initial premise is flawed, and the article does not exist, thus rendering the rest of the "proof" irrelevant - there is no valid empirical proof for reincarnation.

This reminds me of http://futurism.com/the-science-of-death-a-eulogy-from-a-physicist/.

It's clear your atoms and energy go somwhere and are not lost. But your statement doesn't say or prove that whatever we call consciousness moves on in a continuous fashion to another sense of consciousness.

If it's all in the brain, and the power turns off, then consciousness disappears just like a digital watch loses its time when the batteries go out. If it's in a universal soul or such, I don't know how to prove anything.

I have to suggest the possibility that you might be on the wrong track trying to solve this by pulling scraps of science together with philosophy as a band-aid (something that Rupert Sheldrake did with his morphic fields and really stigmatized what would have been good ongoing research on his behalf if he wasn't trying to peddle Platonic ID along side it). Such is probably fine for personal convictions or temporary plugs in belief as you sift through information but I don't think coming up with a clinching reason-based answer is possible at the present time. Even if such links might be possible there's too few pieces, too much guesswork that you'd need to put in to connect those peaces, and probably several shuffles of what would make intuitive sense that would be cleared before science even made it's way half way there.

The solutions seem to be something like this a) sit and wait for science to do it all which may not be in your lifetime b) take on the rigorous training to dive into your own brain - to try and have the psychic and mystical experiences, to see what they are and what they aren't. I chose path b) because it's the only thing I could get moving on and, with my autism, I want to employ any tool I have at my finger tips to grow and try to catch myself from what was really looking like it would have been adult free-fall despite my best and most responsible efforts; the disciplines and exercises for gaining mystical insight seem to help with everything else anyway so I figured it was fair trade. Needless to say b) is also a lot of work, takes a long time, and looking at how much time and effort it takes most people would rather let science either solve it or debunk it, or just go watch TV and forget about it. The one thing I can at least help people on - if they want my help at all - is that I sorted through a lot of junk and was able to find out what, if the spooky stuff is real at all, are the most credible sources for plans of attack that can and will work.

For as much as I love philosophy for what it can explore it still falls much more pray to the 'garbage-in-garbage-out' than empiricism does and at every degree of distance the errors seem to compound. Philosophy seems to be good at hashing out what we can see in front of us when we have the ability to check our own assumptions, when it tries to reach out into the unknown it fails miserably.

A good example of what I'm talking about - imagine if we didn't already have an active map of what cell differentiation looked like in a developing fetus and we asked philosophers to tell us what cell differentiation should look like based on what we knew about what a zygote is and what specifications a finished baby conforms to on its way out. One of my cousins in medschool told me - they walked through the stages and flow of differentiation in class and it makes absolutely no intuitive or rational sense. Would a philosopher have a shred of hope in attacking that one by reason? Sometimes in cases of the specific detail unknown it does, when it's analyzing human behavior we're at least able to strong-arm accountability based on reason, but generally no - we see behavior that doesn't jive with what we thought it should be and we find nests of new dynamics and sometimes, frustratingly, we hit major roadblocks when that information gets so tenuous and so multivariable that we can't figure out how to set one string of dynamics or another by itself to understand what it does or doesn't do.

Consider that and then try reading through strapping cosmologies as written in books like Rudolph Steiner's Outline of the Occult Sciences (or Max Hiendel's follow up to that - Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception), the 'channeled' Jane Roberts Seth books, HP Blavatski's strapping cosmology books, AP Sinnett's Esoteric Buddhism, or even Dion Fortune's step into that territory with Cosmic Doctrine. These look to be as much of a hot mess under the scrutiny of reason as cellular differentiation. That could be either cause for absolute pessimism in our ability to accurately see anything in visionary states (ie. the possibility of highly intelligent and dedicated people penetrating deeper into parts of themselves that were genetic happenstance and either don't owe them any sense or equally weren't granted the capacity to do so) or it could tell us that any attempt at even broaching philosophic ideas would need to incorporate these kinds of first-hand experiences as about the only kind of empiricism in this area that's available.

The only reason Pythagoreanism, Platonism, and the like are even associated with mystical truths is that people like Pythagoras spent decades in the Egyptian mysteries and decades in India. Plato was also an NDE survivor long before that was a common occurrence which also gave him a significant leg up. People like these guys, Socrates, Proclus, Plotinus, etc. were nothing like our modern philosophers who try to use mere reason to try to open every door - that is they took in a lot of superstitious gibberish, what often has been referred to under the banner of ancient wisdom, and worked that in as disciplined a manner as they worked what we deem their practical and useful outputs today. That's part of why someone like HC Agrippa wrote his first of Three (possibly Four) Books on Occult Philosophy based on the Platonic/Neoplatonic model of the universe - ie. the template by which so-called magic is supposed to work as short of that we'll be assuming all kinds of tidy simplicity where there is none and calling hundreds of dynamics one or two dynamics.

I tend to feel like something of a lonely hatter even looking into this stuff because it's just rare to find people who do but I've probably spoken way past my point and you probably get it by now - if science can't do it by objective empiricism you'd need to do it by subjective empiricism. Any logical device you try to build will fall pray to every invalid assumption and everything that you don't know about the underlying reality of what you're trying to assess.

well said techstepgenr8tion.


hopper ah, but where do the old souls come from?


deltaville
for one thing, the link is still just another theory. and i dare say if one must infer anything, it alone is not strong enough to be proof.

that said, why would one have to be 'reincarnated' into another conscious being? one can reincarnate...in a way..energy dissipates, they decompose and fertilize the earth and feed nutrients into plants that grow and animals that eat the plants that will die and decompose and...so on. but why would it have to be Becoming another being?

I understand that little bit of skepticism occurred, and that is a premise I did not think that even my theory was immune from.

Again, as the article mentioned, nothing is inherently an unstable notion. Quantum flux, in this case likely, meant that nothing is an impossible state to attain, even theoretically during the universe's early formation. What I wanted to do was to extrapolate this theory into the realm of consciousness, which might for all intents and purposes, nullify the notion that eternal nothingness is the ultimate fate of any conscious mind.

After all, if consciousnesses is a certain discrete state, it too would be circumscribed by the state that it cannot realistically cease, at least in a permanent fashion. This is not the greatest way of proving reincarnation, but it very well may be the best way to at least give rise to the ultimate continuance of consciousness, even after death. I mean, is there any other way to come to this kind of conclusion with the current scientific lore we have?

@Fnord, the article does exist, it is in the second post. Broken syntax in the hyperlink.

Was this a result after reading my post, or summary judgement?

Interesting concept

I agree there is no way to conclude with current science. Which is why many don't. Future science may be different.
However, why would that equal reincarnation? Why not a heaven/hell? A giant pool of consciousness from which bits are taken and returned?

My friend, who just finished his Ph.D in a particle physics and is an ardent Presbyterian, believes that microtuboles in the brain's neurons which operates in a quantum manner, are proof that a remote soul exists and is seperate from the human body. In essence, quantum non-locality sustains our ultimate consciousness.

I wasn't going to go there, but we all could be esentially microneurotransmitters in a larger brain...galaxies of dendrites.

Current science is why i'm agnostic. I see no conclusive proof of anything. But when you really look at things, what we know..what i think i know...is smaller than a grain of sand in the scheme of things. The only thing i know for sure is that i don't really know anything.

Add in quantum physics and it's yet more incredible. Things that sound competely off the wall to some, like your friend's theory..to me, it could be completely wrong, or could be making an incorrect connection based on lack of additional information or an incorrect assumption. It also could be true, or quite close to it. How (s)he envisions the remote soul may be off, maybe it really is a giant spaghetti monster, or a magnificent pool of light, but it also could be spot on.

That's what i love about physics...and quantum. So much is answered and closed and yet with it, this whole, beautiful, elegant universe opens. It can be daunting as it highlights the irrelevance of an individual, which, the plight of humans seems an eternal struggle to scream to the skies that -I- matter. But if you get beyond that..it's incredible.

I think, if proof is sought, then there needs to be removal of cascacding ifs. It seems the initial one would be the if of consciousness itself.

Any inferential conclusion based on unsupportable assumptions is invalid.

AFAIK that's Stuart Hameroff's research. It tells us there's something at that level animating us. What it doesn't tell us is anything about the nature of it is what's behind us aside from implying that the us in the body is a hologram of itself. It also tells us nothing about what kinds of processes or narratives ensue after death, the cultural qualities of the beings that we are actually are behind the projector rather than the social beings that we are in body, or - if life is eternal - why we play this kind of game with ourselves in feigning ignorance and separation and what our objectives are in doing so.