/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7509114
>would it not be possible to be "born again"?

If you mean a whole 'nother person that's just like me, then the answer is "almost certainly no".
The universe (presumably) contains only so much mass and will last only so long.
And the possible combinations of human DNA alone means your exact DNA sequence is very, very unlikely to be seen again even if we populated every planet in the universe with humans.
And even if you cloned me, the new person still isn't ME, any more than my twin is me.

If you're asking if my soul might go around again, you'll need to go ask /x/ or /lit/, even though neither can answer your question with any certainty.

>>7509133
Well, the Buddhists believe that death is the transition into Bardo, a junction in between lives where you become one with the earth and are a free-floating consciousness. Then, just as if you were waking up from sleep, you are born into the world as a new human, or even a new animal or plant.

What about transfer of consciousness? Ask your friend to explain that, as it is a major influence in reincarnation.

>>7509149
So I guess the claim is that death, rather than being the end of life as we know it, is merely a transformation into something that "thinks" in a way that is so radically different from human consciousness, with no sense of past, present, future that we can't even conceive of what it was before we were born.

Well, then I guess the question is what is consciousness?

>>7509159
And that's the real kicker because no one knows

>>7509159
And what the goddamned motherfuckkity fuck IS consciousness???

>>7509234
the five aggregates

>>7509265
Actually to make matters more complicated Buddhists regard perception and "mental formations" (impulse/volition) as separate from consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

>>7509234
Awareness of yourself and your surroundings, obviously.

>>7509114
Science can't disprove reincarnation because there isn't any consensus as to how reincarnation would actually work. Believers in reincarnation need to get their shit together before it can even be approached by the scientific method.

>me in a past life
>can't define "me"
>can't explain process by which consciousness is preserved through death
>can't provide any hypothesis past "muh feels" that science could even address

>>7509234
>consciousnes
>not plain instincts people pretend to be more worth than those of common animals

essentially it all comes down, to eat, fuck, kill. the way you do it is irrelevant, be it with a fork, with 'love' or with a spaceship with fuckaton of nuclear lasers destroying blue space cats, it is all just eat, fuck, kill.

>>7509114
with what? your memories intact? no evidence. your soul? no evidence. your friend's case isn't solid at all, he has no evidence to support his claims and the burden of proof is on him.

>>7509133
>The universe (presumably) contains only so much mass and will last only so long.

This is something I just can't seem to get on board with. I just can't make sense of a limited universe. So what, the universe happens and then nothing forever? It's counterintuitive but I can see no other option besides infinite time and hence infinite possibilities. Maybe our local universe has limits in mass and time, but the entire universe would seem to have no beginning and no end.

>>7509114
i wonder how that neanderthal shaved his cheeks, his mustache, flavor saver, and forehead

>>7509114
>disproving something that was never proven in the first place
That is illogical.

sage

>>7509114
>But he makes a solid case. If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and you have infinity amount of time, would it not be possible to be "born again"?

This isn't what people mean by reincarnation, and there is not an infinite amount of ANYTHING, except possibly stupidity.

>>7510566
If something is proven it can't be disproved.

>>7510569
Standard cosmology is that the universe has infinite space and infinite matter.

>>7510573

Wrong and wrong.

Humans are a function of their genetics and the environment they grow up in(memories, experiences etc).

The fact that you are here means the probability of "you" existing in this universe is (0,1].

If we assume space or time (or both) to be infinite, then "you" will have existed prior and will exist again exactly as you are now.

There's no way to know for certain though, and it doesn't matter anyway because the sense of self is an illusion imo.

>>7510605
>If we assume space or time (or both) to be infinite,

Except neither is.

>>7510606
Are you god? What should I do to make myself happy?

>>7509234
what it's like to chew 5 gum

>>7510573
People will believe anything if you sound confident eh?

>>7510610

Shoot yourself in the forehead with a low-caliber gun.

Also you don't have to be god to realize that something that began from zero at a finite point in the past isn't infinite.

>>7510613
>Also you don't have to be god to realize that something that began from zero at a finite point
And you know this how?
I just made an assumption, I don't presume to know anything about the unknowable, but you seem to think the current models are unalterable facts.

>>7510623
>HURR

This is a science board you pseud. Kindly fuck off and die while doing so.

>>7510630
>This is a science board
>implying
Have a look at the catalog mate, it's just homework threads, /pol/ baiting and philo threads all day every day.

>>7510634

If you want to ask stupid questions here that's fine, I love a stupid question as much as the next guy. But if you reject the scientific method, then you're just wasting our fucking time. Go back to /lit/ or whatever shithole you crawled out of and ask your "profound" questions there.

>>7510638
What is the scientific model? Just following the current cosmological model as fact without questioning? Assuming there is only model to explain the data we have?
I don't know why you're getting so anal about this tbh.
Also
>The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various, independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG and Planck for example) confirm that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional space-time of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the so-called Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat

>>7510645
>Just following the current cosmological model as fact without questioning?

Are you doing cutting edge research in cosmology? No? Then yes, we accept the existing model, not as a fact but as the best model we have so far. Saying ITS JUST A THEORY or YOU CANT KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE is just lazy psudoskepticism. We DO know roughly how big the universe is and guess what? It's finite.

>>7510651
Some links would be appreciated anon.

>>7510652

For what? The size of the universe? Did you try google?

>>7510656
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=KhTJZG-U3ssC&pg=PA161&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
>In the framework of the standard Friedman-Robertson-Walker csomological models it means that the 3 dimensional spatial geometry of the universe is either flat (Euclidean) or almost flat. In the standard interpretation it is silently assumed that the flat or hyperbolic universe is infinite.

>The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker model is sometimes called the standard model of modern cosmology

>>7510578
>>7510612
Look it up retards.

>>7510651
If you don't understand that the observable universe is not the whole universe, you are retarded and have no business posting on /sci/

>>7510660

That's not what that means. You;re talking about a mathematical model of the universe, not the actual universe. Space constantly expands in all directions, but its started at zero a finite amount of time ago and thus is still (and will always be) finite.

>>7510665
>You;re talking about a mathematical model of the universe, not the actual universe
Welcome to science.

>>7510665
>You;re talking about a mathematical model of the universe, not the actual universe.
Whenever we talk about anything scientifically we are talking about models that represent reality. This model is the best guess we have of what the actual universe is like and is supported by all the available evidence.

>Space constantly expands in all directions, but its started at zero a finite amount of time ago and thus is still (and will always be) finite.
I have no idea what you think "at zero" refers to but the Big Bang did not start with anything "at zero". The Big Bang does not imply finite space or finite matter. Infinite flat space expands in exactly the same way as a finite flat space.

>>7509114

But the thing is, there's not an infinite amount of time.

What I'm thinking though about this is that if the DNA could be rearranged in a certain way wherein the result would be your brain when you're born. Which is unlikely as pointed out by:
>>7509133

Still, consciousness itself is not that much studied. Perhaps, my consciousness today can exist regardless of what sequence of DNA there is. We just don't know for now. But that could be valid, if we know how consciousness works.

>>7509114
Your may come from others but your anything(memory,shape, etc.)didn't came with it. Its not reincarnation sir. Ex: you got your self cloned, then you made something. That won't know it since you just a piece of you its not acctualy you like a twin, you're just synchronised but not totaly connected. *wish I had it explained clearer.

Explain it this:
Youre number 1. (1,2,3,4)
Those other numbers where you too, but on another parallel universe but at different time then you maybe resurrected but on a very different timeline.
*Same anon.

>>7509149
buddhist scientists are awesome

>>7509234
its a function of your brain. If you damage that part of the brain responsible for consciousness you lose it. no brain = no consciousnees