Does reincarnation violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[Zombified]

Zombified: you really know a lot about a lot of stuff

...well, some things about some stuff, I hope.

Agreed, but where does toilet end? We are talking at cross purpose I believe.

Well, I'm just trying to make the point that the 2nd law is explicit about when its conclusion applies, so it isn't violated just because entropy increases locally in some situations.

OK. Got 'ya, but what would that imply viv-a-vis entropy?

You were wondering about degrees of freedom vs. accessible states, and that's partly right because increasing the degrees of freedom is one of the things that increases the number of accessible states. More particles = more degrees of freedom.

How do you propose to shield the container of gas from gravitational gradient, other energy fields, & other non-static energetic effects like neutrinos? Or am I totally missing the point?

That's an idealization, or if you prefer, an approximation when other influences are sufficiently small. Rest assured the influence of neutrinos on the frosty cold ones in your fridge is negligable.

 

[athon]

I wrote a short story on this once, and used it as the basis of several other concepts.

Here was my way of justifying it - souls were simply patterns of 'creation' - anything that was arranged in a certain way was deemed to be at one with 'creation', or in other words, god.

So souls were pieces of god torn away. When a person died, they slowly moved through the tiers of creation (angel, arch-angel, etc.) until they lost all individuality and became one with creation again. Every now and then this didn't work as it should have, and a soul was returned.

In other words, souls were like 'water' - sometimes they were part of the ocean, and sometimes individual drops of rain. Water is never created or destroyed. Neither were souls.

Mind you, this was simply a spec' fiction idea, and exists only in my twisted mind.

Athon

 

[Interesting Ian]

I wrote a short story on this once, and used it as the basis of several other concepts.

Here was my way of justifying it - souls were simply patterns of 'creation' - anything that was arranged in a certain way was deemed to be at one with 'creation', or in other words, god.

So souls were pieces of god torn away. When a person died, they slowly moved through the tiers of creation (angel, arch-angel, etc.) until they lost all individuality and became one with creation again. Every now and then this didn't work as it should have, and a soul was returned.

In other words, souls were like 'water' - sometimes they were part of the ocean, and sometimes individual drops of rain. Water is never created or destroyed. Neither were souls.

Mind you, this was simply a spec' fiction idea, and exists only in my twisted mind.

Athon

Sounds a really good story.

 

[jimlintott]

First of all I am essentially a lay person. I hold no degrees in any field of science. This strikes me as a totally absurd question. In my mind I would want to see proof of reincarnation before any questions about it can be answered. Why not ask what colour is reincarnation or does reincarnation wear underwear? To me unless there is proof of reincarnation there is no point asking any questions about it. Is there something wrong with this logic?

If I was to answer this question I would be inclined to say if reincarnation is actually real then no it doesn't violate the second law because this law is something than anything real has to exist with.

I still think that this question should be answered with a question. What is reincarnation?

 

[The One called Neo]

First of all I am essentially a lay person. I hold no degrees in any field of science. This strikes me as a totally absurd question. In my mind I would want to see proof of reincarnation before any questions about it can be answered. Why not ask what colour is reincarnation or does reincarnation wear underwear? To me unless there is proof of reincarnation there is no point asking any questions about it. Is there something wrong with this logic?

If I was to answer this question I would be inclined to say if reincarnation is actually real then no it doesn't violate the second law because this law is something than anything real has to exist with.

I still think that this question should be answered with a question. What is reincarnation?

I am in agreement that it is an absurd question in as much as clearly reincarnation doesn't contravene the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

But the essential point is this. If the concept of reincarnation was indeed incompatible with the 2nd LOTD, then whatever evidence we might suppose we have for reincarnation will be irrelevant, as we might suppose reincarnation could not possibly occur if it involves contravening the laws of physics.

Reincarnation is the thesis that the self or soul has in the past, and will in the future, experience being reborn in different bodies.

 

[Dr. Popalot]

I am too in agreement that it is an absurd question. There must first be proof that a "soul" inhabits the body. Second that this "soul" doesn't die with the body. Once these two things are established then a question of reincarnation can be raised.

 

[The One called Neo]

I am too in agreement that it is an absurd question. There must first be proof that a "soul" inhabits the body. Second that this "soul" doesn't die with the body. Once these two things are established then a question of reincarnation can be raised.

No, on the converse, I would say we need proof that a materialist based metaphysic is correct. Until such proof is forthcoming we can speculate on the nature and mechanisms of reincarnation.

 

[JamesM]

I would say we need proof that a materialist based metaphysic is correct. Until such proof is forthcoming we can speculate on the nature and mechanisms of reincarnation.

Doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics arise from the materialist-based metaphysic? If we dispense with the metaphysic, we dispense with the laws of thermodynamics, so does it not remain meaningless to ask about the thermodynamics of the soul?

 

[The One called Neo]

Doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics arise from the materialist-based metaphysic?

No. If we were subjective idealists they'd still be this law wouldn't there?

Think if we lived in a matrix like reality. Nothing in our Matrix Universe would be physical or material, but the second law of thermodynamics would still apply.

 

[aggle_rithm]

I am too in agreement that it is an absurd question.

How about this one? Is the kitty-cat that lives in the center of the Sun a calico or a tabby?

And don't tell me there's no kitty-cat in the center of the Sun unless you've been there.

There must first be proof that a "soul" inhabits the body. Second that this "soul" doesn't die with the body. Once these two things are established then a question of reincarnation can be raised.

It has been theorized that the soul is some kind of coherent energy field. The problem with this (well, one of the problems) is that pure energy moves at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time moves at infinite speed, meaning the soul wouldn't have time to get to the next body before the end of the universe (at least, from the soul's point of view).

When my father died a few years ago, I gained some insight into why so many cultures believe that a soul exists. A dead person looks very different from a live person who is just laying very still and not breathing. It is an intangible difference, and could easily be attributed to the departure of some sort of "life force" when a person dies.

 

[The One called Neo]

It has been theorized that the soul is some kind of coherent energy field.

Who says this? If the self is energy isn't this materialism pure and simple? Sounds very implausible to me. Maybe they're not using the word "energy" in a literal sense?

When my father died a few years ago, I gained some insight into why so many cultures believe that a soul exists. A dead person looks very different from a live person who is just laying very still and not breathing. It is an intangible difference, and could easily be attributed to the departure of some sort of "life force" when a person dies. [/B]

You mean that there doesn't look like there's a soul in there when you look into a dead persons eyes?

 

[Zombified]

Who says this?

People who are not really familiar with the meanings of the words 'theorized', 'energy', 'field', or 'coherent'.

 

[Dr. Popalot]

aggle_rithm said:

How about this one? Is the kitty-cat that lives in the center of the Sun a calico or a tabby?

And don't tell me there's no kitty-cat in the center of the Sun unless you've been there.

This is a presumptive question. If you are making a claim it is up to you to prove its existance. I am not required to prove it dosn't exist. Rember, the more outrageous the claim, the stronger proof must be to support it. Have you been to the center of the sun?

 

[aggle_rithm]

aggle_rithm said:

How about this one? Is the kitty-cat that lives in the center of the Sun a calico or a tabby?

And don't tell me there's no kitty-cat in the center of the Sun unless you've been there.

This is a presumptive question. If you are making a claim it is up to you to prove its existance. I am not required to prove it dosn't exist. Rember, the more outrageous the claim, the stronger proof must be to support it. Have you been to the center of the sun?

My point was that it is absurd to speculate about properties of something whose existence is only assumed.

An example is JB Rhine's ESP experiments, where he tried to determine the properties of the "radiant energy" of ESP when the evidence he had collected thus far did not support the existence of ESP.

 

[aggle_rithm]

Who says this? If the self is energy isn't this materialism pure and simple? Sounds very implausible to me. Maybe they're not using the word "energy" in a literal sense?

The writers of "Star Trek", that's who!

You mean that there doesn't look like there's a soul in there when you look into a dead persons eyes?

I mean the subtle difference in appearance between a living and dead person could be interpreted as the result of the soul having departed from the body. Could be it is actually due to lack of muscle tone, lipidity, etc. Who knows? I'm not a mortician.

 

[Dr. Popalot]

aggle_rithm said:

My point was that it is absurd to speculate about properties of something whose existence is only assumed.




I am in complete agreement, that's the position I took with my first reply on this thread. If one wishes to speculate whether some unproven phenomena violates particular laws of physics is a waste of time, but he certainly has the right to speculate. It would certainly be more useful to first prove the phenomena exists and then wonder what it means!