You were dead and alive millions of times before.

[Reptorian]

Let just say, the recycling process within solar systems allows the opportunity for new lives to come by. We all came from materials that have existed long, long time ago. So, once you're dead, long and long after, you will feel as you exist again and perceive things in different forms after recycling process has been completed after earth has been annihilated by the sun supernovae. So you were alive millions of times before and will be alive millions of time after. No soul, no afterlife, no nothing... Just re-materialization.You will take on a different life form with different chemical after series of recycling with new identity each time.

[Ky]

Actually, I'm from Mars.

[Sunbourn]

I've made arrangements for the material from my body to be used in the making of hundreds of dildos after I die. What are you guys gonna do with your death?

[Miller0700]

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en.html

[Reptorian]

Can someone here give an actual useful response?

[Sharpie]

The atoms in my body will be divided among many different things, so when I die and rot away into dust I'll probably become part of many different plants that are around my grave or part of some animal who eats my rotting corpse.

When the earth gets fucked up by the sun dying then those atoms will probably be some kind of space dust or something, I dunno.

[Reptorian]

Actually supernovae kills and breeds new life and there's always certain possibility that you just might become alive again just from those recycled atoms. If the big bounce theory is true, then this would be one of the many lives.

[Katelyn]

I dont believe in that actually (not that there is anything wrong with you believing in it ). It doesnt make sense in my mind, HOWEVER it would be cool! Maybe if it is true, I have lived once and wasnt so weird xD

[The]

I would hate to be anyone but myself.

[thewake]

My response is to call bullshit on this one.

[Reptorian]

And no counteractive evidence to support it. Do you have any evidence that atom arrangement would be a problem if the big bounce hypothesis is true? I don't think so. You were randomized by variables that occurred in the past. So, there's a possibility of your consiousness recreated in different form, but you wouldn't have memories of the past. So the death scenario is similar to how you perceive it except that you become rematerialized into a different life form.

Here's something that could go against the current big bang theory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...e-science/

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-repulsive-g...rgy_1.html

[Ky]

When I die, all of the molecules in my body instantaneously disappear into nothingness.

Wait, I'm not a Jedi. Never mind.

[Absnt]

^ First of all wat?

Also, I'm calling bullshit too. Your particles won't be kept togeather in a unit, and even if they were, there's no evidence that they are linked to any form of conciousness. They're just elemental particles. How would they contain information relating to conciousness at all? Plus, it's far more likely that your particles will go on to become another star in the aftermath of a supernova. I don't think there's much of a chance for those particles to make thier way to another planet which subsiquently has life, let alone intelligent life, and be incorporated into a living system.

[Reptorian]

Your brain is made out of particles and I already have said plenty of times that even if the particles have problem with arrangement, it wouldn't be a problem if the big bounce hypothesis is true while there are few indications of that already (we are inconclusive about the fate of the universe). Most of the particles aren't even the same in your entire life. Think about compression of the universe, that alone eliminates the particle arrangement problem and allows for room for generation of new life. It seems like you people are stuck into this one way of thinking...

[Absnt]

(08-23-2012 08:03 AM)Reptorian Wrote:  Your brain is made out of particles and I already have said plenty of times that even if the particles have problem with arrangement, it wouldn't be a problem if the big bounce hypothesis is true while there are few indications of that already (we are inconclusive about the fate of the universe).

I think your information is a little outdated... Recently the WMAP experiements have provided some proof that the universe will probably expand forever. Everything will keep getting further and further apart, and then everything will be so far apart life will be impossibru. Here:

Quote:http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
The fate of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch". However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.

According to Krauss, whom I have a lot of respect for and whom I read his new book on this topic "A universe from nothing", this is the most likely given the information we now have. While we don't have a definite conclusion, the current information is at least an indication, and I'm going to go with the evidence.

Quote:Most of the particles aren't even the same in your entire life. Think about compression of the universe, that alone eliminates the particle arrangement problem and allows for room for generation of new life. It seems like you people are stuck into this one way of thinking...

The fact that most of the particles aren't the same in our life helps your argument how? If anything, that just proves each particle is irrelevant to our conciousness and it's the collective arrangement that gives us life. Plus, I have no idea how the universe collapsing back on itself then exploding out again would cause us to come back into the same arrangement of particles? I think it's more likely that the universe would explode in a completely different fasion with different paramaters and cause a different version of this universe. (Assuming the collapse theory is true, which as I've written I don't think it is.)

[Reptorian]

And you ignored the link I already have posted and you ignored the fact that even those datas about the fate of the universe only raises more question. The link suggests that there could be a possibility of collapse. It wouldn't be wise to be certain one way or another. I'll admit more data suggests to your point. But if there are preliminary black holes and it is confirmed that the dark matter seems to indicate the big crunch as the links is about that, then one would have to be forced to switch position.

How? It means that randomization isn't a problem if the collapse theory is true and you came from randomized variables from the singularity. So, if the collapse theory is true, you'll just come back as a different life form after a long period of time.

[Absnt]

(08-23-2012 09:47 AM)Reptorian Wrote:  And you ignored the link I already have posted and you ignored the fact that even those datas about the fate of the universe only raises more question.

Which data did I ignore?

Quote: The link suggests that there could be a possibility of collapse. It wouldn't be wise to be certain one way or another.

I certainly do agree with this... But I don't see in the two links you posted where it suggests a collapse? Mind posting a quote or something?

Quote:I'll admit more data suggests to your point. But if there are preliminary black holes and it is confirmed that the dark matter seems to indicate the big crunch as the links is about that, then one would have to be forced to switch position.

How does the dark matter indicate the big crunch? It seems to indicate that particles come in and out of existence which creates a force, and a vaccume, that will continue to push the universe further out infitely... Again, can you quote me to what your talking about? I must be missing something.

Quote:How? It means that randomization isn't a problem if the collapse theory is true and you came from randomized variables from the singularity.

Again, I must be missing something. If you come from randomized variables, how is randomization not a problem? Seems like a very big problem, to me.

Quote:So, if the collapse theory is true, you'll just come back as a different life form after a long period of time.

You'll just be obliterated into millions of parts othe universe... How would it guarantee that you somehow become a living being at all, let alone that your particles were kept togeather?

[Reptorian]

"He suggests that the quantum vacuum has a gravitational charge stemming from the gravitational repulsion of virtual particles and antiparticles. Previously, he has theoretically shown that this repulsive gravity can explain several observations, including effects usually attributed to dark matter. Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) and may provide insight into the nature of black holes and an estimate of the neutrino mass. " You can look for the paper from here. This is a hint.

As for preliminary black holes, there was datas that shown if the big bounce is true, then there would be black hole older than the universe itself meaning before the big bang. I forgot where's the data, but it's about the source of the article debunking the Penrose claim. Maybe arxiv.org/ ?

Every atoms becomes compressed eliminating the atom arrangement problem and then the generation will generate new forms of life, planets, stars... Since you came from the singularity, why shouldn't it be possible that another life may be generated in which your consciousness is transformed after trillions of years of being unconscious after you die into this universe when another singularity come. Quantum information cannot be destroyed. All the information will be compressed and then randomized meaning a new form of consiousness which means there could be another you at a point of time if the big bounce is true even though that's not you.

[Absnt]

(08-23-2012 10:21 AM)Reptorian Wrote:  "He suggests that the quantum vacuum has a gravitational charge stemming from the gravitational repulsion of virtual particles and antiparticles. Previously, he has theoretically shown that this repulsive gravity can explain several observations, including effects usually attributed to dark matter. Additionally, this additional gravity suggests that we live in a cyclic Universe (with no Big Bang) and may provide insight into the nature of black holes and an estimate of the neutrino mass. " You can look for the paper from here. This is a hint.

This makes no sense to me. Cyclic Universes more or less imply a big bang so idk how you can have one with no big bang... Second of all, I think this idea is wrong because of this:

Quote:"KRAUSS: In fact, the discovery of this dark energy has told us that the future will be quite different than we thought, and that's one of the things I talk about in the book. Because of this dark energy, this energy of empty space, which is gravitationally repulsive, it's causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, to speed up."

Your guy is saying dark energy is repulsive but somehow it's causing a cyclic universe? (which implies implosion...) Krauss is saying the exact same thing is repulsive and causing the universe to expand more and more forever. If it's repulsive, it pushes away, and thus avoids a cyclic universe...

Quote:As for preliminary black holes, there was datas that shown if the big bounce is true, then there would be black hole older than the universe itself meaning before the big bang. I forgot where's the data, but it's about the source of the article debunking the Penrose claim. Maybe arxiv.org/ ?

That'd be pretty interesting.

Quote:Every atoms becomes compressed eliminating the atom arrangement problem

How would compression eliminate that problem at all?

Quote:and then the generation will generate new forms of life, planets, stars... Since you came from the singularity, why shouldn't it be possible that another life may be generated in which your consciousness is transformed after trillions of years of being unconscious after you die into this universe when another singularity come.

Because, what constitues a conciousness? Where is it stored? Your interpretation of conciousness sounds like a "soul" that is massless and can leave behind the actual arrangement of particles that constitutes a person.

[Reptorian]

(08-23-2012 10:50 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  

Quote:"KRAUSS: In fact, the discovery of this dark energy has told us that the future will be quite different than we thought, and that's one of the things I talk about in the book. Because of this dark energy, this energy of empty space, which is gravitationally repulsive, it's causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, to speed up."

Your guy is saying dark energy is repulsive but somehow it's causing a cyclic universe? (which implies implosion...) Krauss is saying the exact same thing is repulsive and causing the universe to expand more and more forever. If it's repulsive, it pushes away, and thus avoids a cyclic universe...

Dark energy and dark matter are two different things. So they're talking about two different substances. What if they're right about their observation of the substance they observed? Wouldn't that lead to expansion and contracting at the same time? Oh the fuzzle... So, if the expansion and contracting is true, then what would this say about our ideas? There was hypothesis that the expansion doesn't eliminate the possibility of a cycle by some professor suggesting that there could be multiple areas being a cycle or something that has to do with contracting and expanding forces at the same time. It would be interesting to speculate if their observation is true.

(08-23-2012 10:50 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  How would compression eliminate that problem at all?

Compression eliminates the vast majority of the atom, but preserves the information of the universe into a singularity which is smaller than the atom.

(08-23-2012 10:50 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  Because, what constitues a conciousness? Where is it stored? Your interpretation of conciousness sounds like a "soul" that is massless and can leave behind the actual arrangement of particles that constitutes a person.

Your consiousness is stored in the brain. It gets destroyed at death. It was just generated from the singularity after a certain point of time.

[Absnt]

Quote:Dark energy and dark matter are two different things. So they're talking about two different substances. What if they're right about their observation of the substance they observed? Wouldn't that lead to expansion and contracting at the same time? Oh the fuzzle... So, if the expansion and contracting is true, then what would this say about our ideas?

Oh lol, I accidentally overlooked the difference in terms. In that case, I still don't agree with the guy. There's not nearly enough dark matter to cause an implosion:

http://heseweb.nrl.navy.mil/gamma/dap-ap...ameset.htm

So I think dark energy would repulse more than matter would pull stuff back in...

(08-23-2012 10:50 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  How would compression eliminate that problem at all?

Quote:Compression eliminates the vast majority of the atom, but preserves the information of the universe into a singularity which is smaller than the atom.

source?

Quote:Your consiousness is stored in the brain. It gets destroyed at death. It was just generated from the singularity after a certain point of time.

Ah... Wouldn't that imply everything would be recreated exactly the way it is now?

[Reptorian]

(08-23-2012 11:37 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  Oh lol, I accidentally overlooked the difference in terms. In that case, I still don't agree with the guy. There's not nearly enough dark matter to cause an implosion:

http://heseweb.nrl.navy.mil/gamma/dap-ap...ameset.htm

Well, it does appear that dark matter is increasing

It is well known (Ostriker et al. 1974; Davis et al. 1980; Blumenthal et al. 1984; Rubin 1993) that, on average, the M/L ratio increases from the bright, luminous parts of galaxies to their faint halos, with further increase to systems with larger scales such as groups and rich clusters of galaxies. This increase suggests that there is relatively more dark than luminous matter with increasing scale (see, however, Rubin 1993

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/447/2/L81/fulltext/

The dark center of it all. Astronomers theorize that dark matter comprises 85 percent of the universe's mass, but one of the only ways they can see this substance is by picking up on the gamma rays that shoot off from dark matter particles annihilating each other. Now, astronomers at UC Irvine have detected gamma-ray photons coming from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which backs up the theory that the the center of our galaxy is made of dark matter.

http://today.uci.edu/news/2012/08/nr_dar...120813.php

Here's something that's most likely not reliable, but I'm looking to see if this can be backed up - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-halt.html

Yes, I know it's dailymail.

(08-23-2012 11:37 AM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  source?.

In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem.

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-...tally.html

Edit: I found this- http://io9.com/5799708/the-universes-ver...ang-itself It was primordial black hole, not preliminary...

[Ky]

The funny thing is that we're all assuming that the cosmic matter we're all made of exists in the first place. Isn't it at all possible that reality is simply a falsehood?

[Absnt]

Quote:Well, it does appear that dark matter is increasing

It is well known (Ostriker et al. 1974; Davis et al. 1980; Blumenthal et al. 1984; Rubin 1993) that, on average, the M/L ratio increases from the bright, luminous parts of galaxies to their faint halos, with further increase to systems with larger scales such as groups and rich clusters of galaxies. This increase suggests that there is relatively more dark than luminous matter with increasing scale (see, however, Rubin 1993

Yeah...

Quote:http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/447/2/L81/fulltext/

The dark center of it all. Astronomers theorize that dark matter comprises 85 percent of the universe's mass, but one of the only ways they can see this substance is by picking up on the gamma rays that shoot off from dark matter particles annihilating each other. Now, astronomers at UC Irvine have detected gamma-ray photons coming from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which backs up the theory that the the center of our galaxy is made of dark matter.

Yeah, 85-90% of all of the mass in galaxy's and galaxy clusters is accounted for by dark matter. This is true. If you add the amount of visible matter to that, you get the amount of how much mass is in the universe. How much mater, dark or light, exists all togeather.... The problem with that is, only 30% of the amount of mass necessary to make the universe flat is accounted for by dark+light matter. And since the geometric measurements of the universe show that the universe is flat (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOOMERanG_e...nt#Results , the universe IS flat, we know that more or less for a fact...), we're missing 70% of the matter we need. So where's the missing matter? It's in empty space... Virtual particles fluctuating in and out account for that.

Quote:http://today.uci.edu/news/2012/08/nr_dar...120813.php

Here's something that's most likely not reliable, but I'm looking to see if this can be backed up - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-halt.html

Yes, I know it's dailymail.

Sounds like a possibility but nodt really something based on observation...

Quote: In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem.

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-...tally.html

Just becasue information can't be 'deleted' doesn't mean it can't be spread out and broken apart. The amount of information needed to make a brain as a unit is pretty damn big, and all of the ways those tiny particles are put togeather isn't stored... Just the particle information itself as one single unit.

[Absnt]

(08-23-2012 12:42 PM)Doa Wrote:  The funny thing is that we're all assuming that the cosmic matter we're all made of exists in the first place. Isn't it at all possible that reality is simply a falsehood?

How so?

Quote: I think therefore I am.

Unless your talking about a brain in a vat sort of thing, but even then the brain has to exist.

[Reptorian]

Extra update- Here's the data of primordial black hole surviving big bang analysis- http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423...-bang-say/

But.. Moving on. Now, let see if we find something like that and it's confirmed. Then this would force us to change the viewpoint of our universe.

(08-23-2012 12:46 PM)Absentinsomniac Wrote:  Just becasue information can't be 'deleted' doesn't mean it can't be spread out and broken apart. The amount of information needed to make a brain as a unit is pretty damn big, and all of the ways those tiny particles are put togeather isn't stored... Just the particle information itself as one single unit.

Exactly. All of those particle information goes right back to the singularity if the big bounce is true rendering possible for you to live another life in a different form from randomized variables although with a different form of consiousness. Asides your brain developed from cells developed from past molecules.

[Absnt]

(08-23-2012 02:06 PM)Reptorian Wrote:  Extra update- Here's the data of primordial black hole surviving big bang analysis- http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423...-bang-say/

I have my doubts... Seems speculative.

Quote:Exactly. All of those particle information goes right back to the singularity if the big bounce is true rendering possible for you to live another life in a different form from randomized variables although with a different form of consiousness. Asides your brain developed from cells developed from past molecules.

This still doesn't logically follow, imo. I'll try to break down my thought process.

>> I die.

>> My body deterierates in the ground and gets spread around the earth and becomes other shit through chemical processes.

>> Few billion years go by.

>> The sun blows up.

>> All of the matter on earth is consumed and changed into other molecules and substances.

>> Billions of years go by.

>> Assuming the collapse theory is true, which I seriously doubt at this point due to the flat universe observations, the universe collapses.

>> All matter is compressed into a small area.

>> By some process, it explodes again and particles heat up and turn into other particles and spread out all over the universe.

So where in that process is it possible for any inkling of our conciousnesses to survive? Where in there is it possible for these particles to put togeather another one of us? Am I misunderstanding what you are saying, because I don't think I am... What would guarantee we become another living thing (which is a rare event in the universe) instead of our particles spreading out into other stars, or planet or dust fragments floating about in the universe?

[Reptorian]

Yes, you're missing the fact that the particle are annihilated as it is comes to the singularity, but not the information that goes with it.

Never mind... Got bored of this.

[Ky]

(08-23-2012 12:42 PM)Doa Wrote:  The funny thing is that we're all assuming that the cosmic matter we're all made of exists in the first place. Isn't it at all possible that reality is simply a falsehood?

[SoulRiser]

(08-23-2012 12:42 PM)Doa Wrote:  The funny thing is that we're all assuming that the cosmic matter we're all made of exists in the first place. Isn't it at all possible that reality is simply a falsehood?

There's actually a whole theory based on that, called Subjective Reality. The idea is that everything we experience here is some kind of dream world, even the science and physics is within the dream world, so we can't use that to prove that this is actually reality. Something like that. Pretty interesting.