seriously disabled

Some countless websites on Google claim that there is life beyond death but what does science have to say about this especially biology, chemistry and physics? Is life after death just wishful thinking or is there some science beyond this? If evolution is indeed true and humanity indeed evolved from more fundamental forms of life, does this mean that there is no life after death?

Personally I believe that if God really exists then he must be a jerk of the highest kind. But then again on second thought I don't believe that God is really out there somewhere and that's because I don't believe that he really exists. If you look at the human condition on Planet Earth then you will see incredible suffering. Therefore I think it's fair to say that it is a Machiavellian Universe out there who doesn't care about humanity at all or about our suffering.

There is a man who was claimed to be 250 years old when he died. So doesn't this pretty much contradict what is being taught in biology if a man can be 250 years old? http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/li-ching-yuen-the-amazing-250-year-old-man/ http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/02/the-herbalist-who-lived-to-be-256-years-old-fact-or-fiction/

I don't think tens of thousands of years will be enough. So my answer is probably going to be no.

What makes me say what? That psychology isn't really a science?

This is so true. I believe that science is still in its infancy. It could take millions of years from now until humanity will know everything there is to know about everything... if ever. That is why I often wish that I could be born in another couple million years from now where science, technology and medicine is much more advanced that it is now.

Is psychology even a science compared to say neuroscience, neurology, biochemistry and biophysics for example?

I don't know the answer to all of these questions but I think that we are basically constrained to go with our current best, mainstream science explanations.

I could bet my life that most of the physics that is taken to be true today will simply turn out to be wrong in a 100,000 or even a million years from now. Religious dogma and superstition has corrupted everything and that is why science has progressed very little. Only a 1000 years ago humans were still savages and barbaric. Science didn't exist back then and the people back then believed that religion and superstition is reality (and this is what held them back). During most of human history (and prehistory), science didn't exist and humans were savages and completely barbaric. Also religion held those people back from discovery and the development of science because they believed in religious superstition and miracles. And it's only since the 1700s that humans have began to develop true science and today (in the year 2016) I believe that we are still only in the very beginning stage of discovery. This means that most of what we know today about physics, chemistry and biology might turn out to be wrong in the future and will need to be corrected.

Can someone please explain to me why an infinite regress of causes is impossible? Is it because according to quantum mechanics things at the subatomic world do not have causes? So is determinism (determinism is the idea that everything must have a cause) actually false according to quantum mechanics?

Yes it does matter.

Yes but what we don't yet know is in what sense do mathematical objects exist.

So what evidence is there for statistical mechanics (both classical and quantum statistical mechanics) and chaos theory?

True but what about other theories of physics like statistical mechanics (both classical and quantum), thermodynamics, chaos theory, dynamical systems etc? Do all these theories have a an equal amount of experimental evidence supporting them like general relativity and quantum mechanics for example?

The biggest problem with physics today is that there are too many theories but not enough experiment or observational evidence to determine which of those theories is a more accurate explanation of the world. In order to get an idea of what I'm complaining about please open the Wikipedia template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Branches_of_physics. In this Wikipedia template you will see many different branches and theories of physics but there is noway to tell just by reading it which of these branches or theories of physics is more correct or offers a better explanation of reality.

Most if not all of the physics that they teach at university could be wrong. For starters, physicists rely too much on mathematics but the truth is that mathematics does not represent reality because mathematics is just a human invention and isn't even a science. The fact is that physicists today behave much more like beaurocrats than truly honest people who are really didicated to finding out the truth.

I don't have an exact citation but several studies have confirmed that plants do feel pain. Check out those links for example: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm

I don't really believe that inanimate things can experience pain because they lack a functioning nervous system. There was a plant, now extinct, that would make a screaming sound if it was cut. This could mean that plants can feel pain but then again plants are not inanimate objects.

Do inanimate objects feel pain and can we even prove if they do or do not?

No point. I'm just a very curious person and I am interested in these subjects from a scientific point of view, that's all.

I think it's quite possible that humanity will be extinct in a billion years from now. And even if some of the remaining humans could be moved to space stations when the sun starts to grow and engulf the earth, I think it could still be problematic for them to survive there because in space stations there is no air, no food and no water and also building a structure that is strong enough to sustain millions (or even a billion) of humans for a long time in space is problematic in itself. Also as long as the sun is shining there will be energy but after the sun dies, relying on other sources of energy will be problematic because there is not enough of them. Also I believe that the universe will reach a state (perhaps a trillion years from now) when life at all will no longer be possible.

It's always good to be optimistic but in that case, only time will tell if space is too toxic for humans or not.

But leave to where? Leaving to another solar system may not be possible because it's too far away and there is no way to get there safely.

This is what I was thinking since life on earth will not be possible at some point in the future.

If living in space is not possible, what will humanity do in 1 billion from now when the sun will become larger and hotter?