My wife is a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, so we get the organization's excellent newsletter. On paper, even!
I just got around to reading the August 2015 issue. It had an excellent piece by physicist Sean Carroll -- the address he gave after winning FFRF's "Emperor Has No Clothes Award."
You can read "Physicist Carroll: Atoms and Eve incompatible" on the FFRF web site. Or via this PDF file:
Download Physicist Carroll: Atoms and Eve incompatible - Freedom From Religion Foundation
Only the paper version had two interesting graphics. So I took photos of them to share here.
The first shows how the universe evolves from a state of simple order at the moment of the Big Bang to a state of complex disorder some 1 quadrillion years after the Big Bang (meaning, a really long time from now). That's the blue line.
The red line is emergent complexity in the universe. It shows how complexity -- life forms, star systems, etc. -- increases even as disorder/entropy also increases in the universe as a whole. But eventually emergent complexity declines to the simple order that marked the beginning of the universe.
Carroll has an easy-to-understand explanation of this in his acceptance address.
But complexity, the organization of the stuff that is going on, is a completely different thing from entropy. In the beginning, the universe was a very simple place, just hot and dense and smooth. And the end, a googol years from now, the universe will be a simple place once again. It will be empty space. It is between when the entropy is increasing from low to high that the universe became complex, forming planets and stars and galaxies and living organisms.
That behavior is not an accident. That is a universal way that complexity behaves. Entropy just goes up, but complexity first goes up and then fades away once you approach the final state, which we call thermal equilibrium. So the right answer to the creationists is that not only is it allowed by the second law of thermodynamics — that complex structures like living beings arose here on Earth — but the reason why is because of the second of thermodynamics. We are parasitic upon the increase of entropy of the universe.
We are little surfers riding a wave of entropy until we eventually scuttle up on shore, and it'll just be empty space forever. And again, the universe is not special, you can see this in a cup of coffee. You take a cup of coffee with the cream separate, that's low entropy. Highly organized but also very simple. If you mix them together, it is high entropy, everything mixed together but also very simple.
It's the "in between" when you see the tendrils of the cream reaching into the coffee and swirling in little complex patterns. That's when you get the complexity of the universe. These little swirls, these little ethereal bits of complexity that are caught between the simple beginning and the simple end. That's us. That's what we are, temporary eruptions of structure and organization as the universe goes from simplicity to simplicity.
So that explains how complex structure can (and indeed must) arise in a universe that has a simple beginning and simple end.
Carroll's other image is used to explain why life after death isn't possible. It's a nifty, though incomprehensible to most people, set of equations.
Here's what he says about the impossibility of life after death.
Why is that true? The argument is basically the following: The mind is the brain. That's what the mind is, there is nothing else other than the brain that is going on. And the brain is made of atoms. Here is the controversial part — even some of my friends get annoyed when I say this. But it's the truth so I will lay it on you.
We know how atoms work. They are not a mystery to us. And they work in such a way that when you die there is no way for the information that is "you" to persist after death. There is no way for that stuff, that knowledge, that set of beliefs and feelings that made up you, to leave your body. Because it is stuck there with the atoms that are decaying in your tomb or being cremated or whatever your favorite way to be after death is.
We don't know all of the laws of physics by any stretch of the imagination. But we know something about them, and we know enough to make a very powerful claim: there is no room for new laws of physics that would affect how the atoms in your brain actually work.
That's a very subtle statement. I think that Dan mentioned I have three hours to give this talk, so . . . I would get tired if that happened, but I would give the whole explanation for the laws of physics, how they came to be, why we are confident in them.
Instead I will just intimidate you into submission by showing you an equation. In this one equation are summarized all of the laws of physics necessary to understand the atoms in your brain at the energy mass and length scales relevant to your everyday lives. We have quantum mechanics, we have spacetime, we have gravity, we have the other forces, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. We have matter, the electrons and the quarks you're made of, and we have of course the Higgs boson.
There are plenty of things physicists don't understand, but we know enough to say that if there are any other forces, particles, fields, phenomena, they can't affect the atoms in your brain. If there are new particles and fields that we haven't yet seen (which there probably are), either they're so weak or short-lived that they would not have any affect on what the atoms are doing, or we would have found them in experiments. Those are the only two options.
No one ever understands me when I say this, so I'm going to say the same thing over again. I'm not saying we understand all of physics. I'm not even saying we know how the fundamental laws come together to make complicated things like frogs and ecosystems and spiral galaxies. There are enormous amounts of work to be done in understanding how science works, including physics.
But we have a basic underlying framework, which we call quantum field theory. This framework is either true or false. All the evidence says that it's true, and if it's true then there is no room for new physics that can in any way affect what goes on in the atoms in your brain. We understand what they do. There is therefore no room for the information that you persist after you die.
Read Sean Carroll's entire piece to get the full impact of his message. You may not agree with him, but you'll take a fascinating ride through basic principles of modern science.
Brian, If Sean is correct, he would first need to be able to explain just what Consciousness is, and where it originates from. I think this Article is a good counter to Sean's and your skepticism.
http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Grossman/Grossman-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_2002-21-5-24.pdf
Also, Sean's prognosis of there being no life after death and there being no mind outside the body would cancel every thing that Tom Campbell teaches, including his massive Book, .,,,,"My Big TOE"
Jim Sutherland
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | November 30, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Jim, so what do you see as the evidence for life after death that outweighs the evidence against it?
Sure, anything is possible. But some things are more possible than others. Understanding possibilities is the way of science. Nothing is certain, but some things are more likely to be true than other things.
Since you seem to be more open to the possibility of life after death than I am (or Sean Carroll is), maybe you could explain your reasons for this.
I realize that lots of people have stuff on the Internet claiming that we live on after we die. But "stuff" isn't evidence, or reasonable arguments. What evidence is there, or reasonable arguments, for life after death?
Posted by: Brian Hines | November 30, 2015 at 08:31 AM
Brian, of course, you ask a loaded question of me. Other then personal experience of the fact that, I am another reincarnated verson of an old soul that has lived many past lives. But when you don't even believe you are a soul, or have a mind that is not your brain, proves that you have never been successful in seperatng from your physical body as the Observer to look back at your self as Brian. I have, as many others have, who document their out of body travels all over the internet. You don't believe them, so why would you believe me? The fact that I am here now as Jim proves ( to me ) that there is life after death, because I am alive again right now.,after haven died physically, many times. I have already posted many examples here of people now, who clearly remember haven lived many past lives. One more example would not convince you, or be able to prove the reality of life after death. But if you ever are successful of a real OBE, and are able to see your self as Brian, you will now longer need to ask such unprovable questions.
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | November 30, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Jim, I'm not doubting that you have had meaningful experiences that can't be adequately described to others. We all do. In fact, no personal experience really can be understood by anyone else.
But personal experiences often don't reflect some objective communal reality. Dreams and hallucinations, for instance. So unless we are supposed to believe that every personal experience represents some genuine objective reality, it is necessary to distinguish between personal and universal, subjective and objective.
That's all I was trying to do. I really didn't expect that you'd be able to provide evidence for life after death. If you could, you'd be world famous. I mainly was using my questions to point out the subjective personal nature of your seeming claim that humans live on after they die.
This is a belief that gives comfort to billions of people. But it isn't a proven fact.
Posted by: Brian Hines | November 30, 2015 at 12:18 PM
http://youtu.be/DTSM626ZhGA
Start here, Brain to challenge your skepticism.
Regards,
Jim
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | November 30, 2015 at 01:40 PM
Brian, Sorry the Link won't load. But this is the Book I tried to Link.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Soul-Out-Body/dp/006251671X
At least, read the Amazon reviews. It also is available on pdf free, but I can't find the Link, as I am not home.
Jim
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | November 30, 2015 at 04:59 PM
appreciating the Brian- Jim dialogue , like for instance'
'' But personal experiences often don't reflect some objective communal reality. """
I guess it therefore I got the recommended OPEN letter in the local Daiky Newspaper undersigned in print on paper with the name "Maharaji"
because it was done with real atoms / matter , we all can read.
It helped / directed me at the time to make a decisive decision
We have three categories :
1- INTUITIONS , y'r right : they cannot be communicated !
2- INNER EXPERIENCES, Y'R RIGHT AGAIN, 100% non communicable
3- SERENDIPITIES also called MIRACLES or IMPOSSIBILITIES;
(impossible outside the quantum theories ! )
These serendipities apply to every human being
on a need to have them basis
The then impact is inversely proportional
I mean a person very close to the Source has many serendipities per day but is much less astonished than the cynicus, IQ fanatic who is really flabbergasted with one serendipity per 20 years able to change his life completely
A Holy Person , Completely One with the Source ( far above the quantum effects )
seeing all life unfolding as it is ment to go
He is just loving because of so much geniosity
777
ps
This applies to all mankind and even the animal kingdom
and in all religions and all nON-religions
One could write a unique book around these 3 phenomena
-
Posted by: 777 | December 01, 2015 at 05:51 AM
I forwarded this Article to a friend of mine, a Harvard Grad. Physicist, asking him if he could debunk Sean's prognosis in the Article regarding his "proof" there is no life after death. Here was my friend's answer.
Jim,
Until Sean can explain consciousness he has no argument.
However, there may be no life after the second death,
the one where you lose your memory to be reborn.
"My view is that consciousness comes from a soul that images everything outside of you to within you.
Scientifically the soul imaging process is explained by the T-duality of string theory and quantum field theory
where physics on a circle a distance r from the center of the soul is the same as the physics a distance 1/r inside the soul from its center.
But since I cannot say exactly what consciousness is, Ishwar says it is what is listening Astral Body Is a Capacity of Sense Perception | Ishwar Puri, I cannot prove that consciousness come from the T-duality.
Astral Body Is a Capacity of Sense Perception | Ishwar P...
View on www.youtube.com
Preview by Yahoo
So I cannot debunk Sean. But I will add that Lubos Motl, a former Harvard professor and a string theorist, thinks Sean is an asshole. But you should not believe either Sean or Lubos in my opinion."
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | December 01, 2015 at 11:31 AM
This man, ( Allan Chronshaw ) claims to remember past lives all the way back to Atantes. But, he caught my personal interest claiming to be the present Reincarnation of James, the blood and flesh Brother of Jesus. I have had many debates with him regarding Sant Mat, and told him he keeps reincarnating because he is a prisoner of his mind, and can not rise above body consciousness as we are taught by Sant Mat Masters.
http://cronshaw.us
777, he needs some good Ole Sant Mat Teachings. Why don't you put your Sant Mat debating skills to better use than here, as Brian is already being pulled by Charan Singh's Buuldozer along with you and I. :-)
Jim
Posted by: Jim Sutherland | December 01, 2015 at 03:16 PM
Great observation Jim
Until now , . . it's Mauj ; Wauw say the french :)
I started in this blog telling
that
at the time of Seth Shiv Dayal MaharaJI,
I was a big time murderer
then He learned me some compassion , the Key to everything
I feel fine at my age ( 80 almost ) that Delhi Satsangis who like
a modern coating on the old teachings
plan to open some of these discussions,
like
the IQ vs INTU / LOVE approach and the reasonability of God to do what She does,
in hindi and punjabi
So nice to hear
a rough start in english ( orthographically yet to correct )
http://www,anami.info
777
Posted by: 777 | December 01, 2015 at 05:47 PM
Dear Brian
I hope you wont mind a few simple questions
You wrote a book "Gods Whisper, Creations Thunder" and, I strongly suspect that at the time of writing, you believed and agreed with all that you wrote. You were a seeker and then initiated. These are, I suspect, facts that you do not contest? We can conclude from your Church of the Churchless content that you have changed your position, your beliefs.
Q. Is it an impossibility that you could change your beliefs again, or do you now know that you have found Truth ? If so, what is different this time compared to last time when you chose to be initiated that makes you so confident that you have found Truth?
I ask you to look at your debunking of Thomas Cambell's My Big Toe: MBT is a trilogy, three lengthy volumes, with evidence based experiments, results, practical methods to conduct one's own experiments, written by a true scientist (you so often draw upon scientific methodology as 'gospel' yet, my understanding is that you yourself are not a published scientist?) and supported by other well known, highly respected scientists. Some have even put forward their own theories, not dissimilar, for example, Lanza and his Biocentricity.
I suggest that your attempt to put down MBT theory by drawing upon one scientist only, one that has been criticised by members of the scientific community, is, distinctly unscientific.
Q. Could it be possible that your desire to debunk 'at any cost' is because MBT presents evidence that does not fit your current belief system?
Many of the great scientists of the past, even Einstein, have reached the conclusion that there must be some kind of God. There are many quotes to this effect. Your conclusions are very different, yet you often quote these 'greats'
Q. Do you consider yourself as a greater scientist then they?
Q. Is your idea of the spirit of open enquiry one that selectively quotes from science to fit your belief?
Science of yesterday was different from the science of today. Yesterday science was above politics, economics, borders, scientists considered themselves uninfluenced by these petty restrictions, and explored reality for the benefit of mankind.
Today, science has changed, its research is driven by intentions of funders, sponsors, employers, politics and large corporates. In other words, science is driven by an economic and politic elite belief system.
When you refer to scientific method, I, as one reader, assumed you refer to the former vision of science, but I suspect you belong to the latter.
Lastly, I would like to remind you that science first and foremost is based upon data. But data is meaningless without interpretation. Information is 'data' plus 'story': where 'story' is the interpretation of the data, the human element. Story is where human intent is applied to the data to create information. Data is irrefutable, Story is subject to influence. I believe the sum content of Church of the Churchless clearly defines your 'influence' content and intent.
Of course, it is your blog, and it may or may not influence others, but in the off chance that it does, I do feel some honestly written statement to the effect that this represents your current belief system would be kind and acting responsibly. You may or may not be right, you thought you were right once before, you have completely changed, and you think your views are correct now, but please do not claim openness, that is a falsity.
I do hope you have the courage to publish
Posted by: Phil Downes | October 08, 2016 at 12:07 PM
Tom Campbell makes sense imo in his theory that we are living in a digital information system. We are living in a kind of virtual reality, a data information system.
His theory ties in with the inner experiences that satsangis have (my thoughts) in that we can move from this reality to a non-physical reality through intent and having a different focus, and then connect with a different data stream (meditation perhaps is doing this?)
There are many interesting youtubes with him discussing his theories. I think its time to give up all our beliefs and change our thought patterns and as Tom says "take full responsibility for our present quality of consciousness". Interesting times indeed.
Posted by: Jen | October 08, 2016 at 03:47 PM