/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6643107
It's possible, but it's untestable and thus unfalsifiable, just like most religious myths.
Also filtered.

>>6643111
Why is it un-testable if it exists?

>>6643116
If it's untestable then it's existence is unfalsifiable and thus improbable.
Stop bumping shitposts to the front page.
Friendly sage and filter.

>>6643121
You didn't answer my question and samefag:
>>6643121
>>6643111

>>6643124
What makes you think that everything that exists is testable?

>>6643121
>unfalsifiable and thus improbable

Not quite. Unfalsifiable and thus meaningless is a better expression.

>>6643125
I didn't say that, I'm not a narcissist. It was a question and not a statement. Anyway, because it cannot be tested, it's not a "myth". If it exists. Maybe we haven't got the capability to test it yet, or maybe we are not looking in the right direction. It's unlikely scientists have tried to prove it--again, that doesn't mean it's a 'myth' Perhaps afterlife is like a dream or nightmare; dreams exist, and aren't really testable-- but they are part of the universe and aid to our understanding of it. If we found a way to test a dream, maybe from this information we will learn more about afterlife???

>>6643127
It's not meaningless, meaning is subjective; it's beyond humans current scientific ability, and not on the agenda. If you were judged upon death, then it definitely wouldn't be meaningless, even in the subjective sense, because you may be living incorrectly in accordance with the afterlife.

>>6643124
Dude you're on the maths and science board of course people are gonna be mad about you posting you're liberal arts shit here

>>6643154
umad.

>>6643185
So, being scientific about afterlife, I must find a bridge between two different worlds (life, and the afterlife). In dreams, you have an O.B.E (out of body experience); you experience a different world than your own. Then how does one create the 'bridge' between the dreamworld and the real world? What would I need to do to create a dreamstate? (i.e. a machine that, when it's active, shows a dreamstate; not through the human body and chemical reactions---but chemicals can be included).

>>6643107
>Is afterlife possible?

Unknowable, seems pretty incredibly unlikely tho.

>It's unfair

So?

>>6643192
>In dreams, you have an O.B.E (out of body experience); you experience a different world than your own.

No you don't. You experience random noise from your brainstem, and your brain tries to make sense of this noise by weaving it into a narrative, which is what it's best at. At no point are you not completely alive while sleeping.

>>6643203
That's wrong. 1.
2. I never said you were dead.

You still experience a different world, no matter how it was created---the effect is just as important as the cause. And you didn't answer my question, what would I need to replicate the 'noise being weaved into narrative"?

>>6643107
>>6643116
>>6643124
>>6643130
>>6643132
>>6643185>>6643192
>>6643209
Is it possible that all tripfags love to suck dick?
It's unfair that not even one of them is straight.

>>6643107
>be tripfag
>start thread on /sci/ about topic that is, by definition, untestable

why am i not surprised, you chose 'aether' of all things for your tripfag name. saged and reported.

>>6643111
>>6643121
>>6643218
Samefag.
>Reporting
>Can't fend for the self.
>Typical modern scientists, where would you be without daddy?

If someone breaks in to my house, I come at them with a weapon or even my fists... If someone breaks into your house, you call the police. HAHAHA you fucking pussies.

>>6643192
I dunno op maybe test your idea on congenitally blind people born blind and not blinded while they were children who supposedly cannot dream in color and cannot visually hallucinate anything or are not supposed to anyways??

>>6643230
What about a spherical machine made of lots of intertwining bars that in action, spin rapidly and intersect each other harmoniously. Creating noise, and then on the surface of the machine would appear the bridge between the dream and the real world?

>>6643107
He aether, I always enjoy your shitposting because of the gross misunderstanding of science in general, of so many specific things in science and your butthurt never-ending attempts to get credits on /sci/ for /x/ topics.

I honestly don't know if you are a troll or you don't know about the existence of /x/. And in general I wonder why you and your kind so desperately seek out scientific approval.

>>6643238
I don't understand why you continue to post in my threads given your crude understanding of them.

>>6643234
yes very probable, go make it anon! Or take your meds, whatevs

>>6643240
what is there to understand and how have I showed to lack this understanding?

>>6643241
I'd need more than a billion £; it's not a toy I'm talking about, it's a machine that can -"convert noise into narrative"-.