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/

It could be that we can know everything we need to know in a few thousands or tens of thousands of years. Will that be enough?

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

What makes you say that?

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

So that taken into consideration, from what knowledge we have, inanimate of objects appear to us to not be living, but how can we actually prove this? Just because they do not possess respiratory systems or functioning brains or organs, does not necessarily mean they don't have these systems ordered in such a way that our science would not recognize them.

 

Food for thought. I've always thought very deeply about life etc. And I'm my experience from a scientific viewpoint, science cell is true regardless of one's religion or predisposition etc. That aside science has not discovered everything, all though what we do know alludes to the fact that there are things out there beyond our wildest dreams that exist, our science is just not advanced enough to understand these things.

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?

What you fail to grasp is that being wrong and needing to be corrected are NOT synonymous. It's unlikely that what we know now of physics will turn out to be wrong, but it's inevitable that it will need to be corrected. That's how it's supposed to work, constant updates as we increase our knowledge.

 

I'm not sure what one can do with a stance like this. Are you arguing that we should all stop learning mainstream physics because our understanding of it isn't perfect? Why bother learning it if it will turn out to be different 100,000 years from now, is that what you're suggesting? Aren't we constrained to using our best current explanations?

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?

Philosophers have been arguing about that since mathematics was invented (or discovered, depending which side of the argument you are on). I'm not sure it really matters.

Yes it does matter.

What is still amazing to me is that some very high brow and abstract mathematics can have some bearing on the real world through physics.

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

They are all well-tested fields of physics. Keep in mind that different regimes require different physics. For example, you'd never use Newtonian mechanics to describe how electron orbitals behave - you need quantum mechanics for that, because Newtonian mechanics doesn't apply to systems that small. That doesn't mean NM is 'wrong' or 'less tested.'

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

I generally disagree with this. There are many experiments running all the time. For instance we have great evidence that the standard model of particle physics, general relativity and the Lambda CDM model all offer good descriptions of our world. Quantum mechanics has always stood up to the tests made of it, including the very strange aspects. (One has to take in to account the domain of validity etc)

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?

You imagine a caricature of what physicists are like, and then condemn them for it. Reality would be a good tool to use here, as opposed to making shit up and then claiming it's true. I'm very disappointed in this post. It's nothing but bitterness and delusion.

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.

Citation?

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?

Humans will die whatever we do; either through time or through evolution beyond a recognisable human; what’s your point?

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.

End of discussion. Unless you want to allow that we can probably overcome most problems to do with space.

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

Leave...

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.

Be dead?

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?