Brian Cox says physics 'ruled out' the human soul at particle level

Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.

LIFE after death theories collapse under scientific scrutiny because the field of particle physics has "ruled out" the possibility of humans having a soul, renowned physicist Brian Cox has claimed.​

Questions about the afterlife remain unanswered with the jury still out on whether life after death is real. Many people claim to know what happens when we die, based on anecdotal evidence and stories from so-called near-death experiences or NDEs. People who have stood on the brink of death often recall visions of bright lights or memories of seeing their deceased loved ones.

NDEs are often reported by people who have gone into cardiac arrest or were briefly declared clinically dead while on the operating table.

In some instances, the visions and memories are very detailed, such as the man who claimed he met Satan in hell.

The medical sciences have tried to explain these phenomena through residual brain activity or chemical reactions triggered by intense trauma.

Particle physicist and TV presenter Brian Cox has, however, taken the discussion one step further and explained why there is no measurable evidence of humans having souls that could live on after death.

The popstar-turned-scientist appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast where he discussed the idea of humans having souls, among other topics.

In his estimate, there is no observable force - the soul - that interacts with the human body at the subatomic level.

If such a force existed within us, it would strongly react with the particles our bodies are made of.

Instead, physicists have so far only observed four fundamental forces governing this world - gravity, the weak and strong nuclear force, and electromagnetism.

None of these forces could explain the concept of a soul trapped inside the body.

Professor Cox, who teaches at the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester, said: "So, here is my arm. It is made of electrons and protons and neutrons.

"If I have a soul in there, something we don't understand but it's a different kind of energy or whatever it is we don't have in physics at the moment.

"It interacts with matter because I'm moving my hand around.

"So whatever it is, it is something that interacts very strongly with matter."

Professor Cox went on to say scientists have made ultra-high precision measurements looking for a fifth force of nature, but have not found one.

Consequently, the human soul can be ruled out on the most fundamental level imaginable.

The physicist added: "If you want to suggest there's something else that interacts with matter strongly, then I would say that it's ruled out.

"I would go as far as to say it is ruled out by experiments.

"Or at least it is extremely subtle and you would have to jump through a lot of hoops to come up with a theory of some stuff that we wouldn't have seen when we've observed how matter interacts."

According to one theory, NDEs are caused by residual brain activity even when the body is shutting down.

Some researchers have proposed the visions and memories are hallucinations caused by not enough oxygen flowing into the brain.

Similarly, some theories speculate NDEs are hallucinations caused by brain cell death.

A more out-there theory suggests the dying body synthesises the psychoactive chemical N,N-Dimethyltryptamine or DMT.

Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) researchers Neil Dagnall and Ken Drinkwater said: "Currently, there is no definitive explanation for why near-death experiences happen.

"But ongoing research still strives to understand this enigmatic phenomenon."
 
Brian Cox is Britain's answer to Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson, except more legitimate because he has actual scientific degrees.
He's the trendy TV science man that doesn't particularly have a mind of his own and is just a mouthpiece for the I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE crowd

He's also notorious for being in his 50s and trying to look like what he thinks resembles a teenager - graphic t-shirts, leather jackets and jeans, and that weird long hair which I honestly thought was a wig until he started going grey. The result is that he ends up looking like an old lesbian.
 
Most physicists don't think the universe came out of literal "nothing."
Out of curiosity what do most physicists believe in terms of cosmology. If there was "something" there for thee universe to come out of, where did that something come from?
Not to put words in your mouth, but the belief in an omniscient god who can predict the future (if that is what you believe) also strongly implies a lack of free will. If your future is pre-determined, you don't have free will.
I'm not practising but catholic doctrine was a bit more subtle. God has perfect knowledge of the future. The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise. It's also taught that he's outside time, past, present and future are the same for whatever that's worth.

Course it's not supposed to be effable. There's a reason faith is required. At some stage reason and intellect just aren't enough
 
We are all just figments of a dream from some other person who will wake up soon and we will all go poof

prove me wrong science lol

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

i agree the smaller you go, the weirder it gets. I studied chemistry to try and avoid physics, and was mighty disappointed once I got to p. chem. If the government ever declassifies info on their quantum experiments since the 1950s we might learn a thing or two. But that data isn’t for us plebs
 
"It-it totally exists and we know about it because reasons but nobody can find it but it totally exists guys I swear!"

cope harder soulcuck

I don't know if it exists or not.

But I do know one thing.

Neither does Brian Cox. Because souls are invisible, aetherial pink unicorns that are always standing behind you.

"Hey guys, I don't know this thing is, I don't know where to look for it if it exists, or how I would quantify it since I know nothing about it, or it's theoretical makeup. But I totally proved it didn't exist by using data that I have no idea if it even vaguely relates to something even tangentially connected to something I have no conception of!"

It's like a medieval alchemist trying to disprove the existence of the concept of relativity by waving a butterfly net through the air and pointing out he hasn't found anything but butterflies.
 
I'd say anything from quarks onwards. I could do the maths to make everything work and answer questions in the exams, but frankly at that point the lecturer may as well have been a High Priest. The connection to the real world gets harder and harder to discern as you stack theoretical derivations on top of one another.

Fully aware the problem might be me here by the way! Maybe other people on the field really do "get it". There's a reason I didn't pursue a career in science in the end.
 
There's no gravity at a particle level just a 'well there must be gravitons'. And CERN isn't even close to finding all the zoo particles.

BTW, a soul or spirit by definition is not in the physical world. Therefore, it may be that no amount of experimentation in the physics lab including Cern and Arithmetic will find it.

Then there are higher dimensions. Ask Cox what 'particles' reside there. The current theory is 'well, there might be strings that wrap into a ball or something'. Some physicists speculate that some higher dimensions are so complex they defy Human understanding in such a profound way it would be like trying to explain the Pythagorean theorem to a toddler.

Of course, there's the Universe is 'infinite' and the "many worlds" theory. Which means there is an Earth where everything is the same except I'm an actual fully sentient Black Bear posting to the internet from my cave in Northwest NJ.
 
I'd say anything from quarks onwards. I could do the maths to make everything work and answer questions in the exams, but frankly at that point the lecturer may as well have been a High Priest. The connection to the real world gets harder and harder to discern as you stack theoretical derivations on top of one another.

Fully aware the problem might be me here by the way! Maybe other people on the field really do "get it". There's a reason I didn't pursue a career in science in the end.

To be fair, to some of us, any math beyond Trig is basically a religion we have to take on faith, as is any science beyond about 2nd year college.

I have a couple friends who work in fairly rarified levels of a couple sciences - real-world application stuff, mind, not theoretical. But even then, as best I can read between the lines of what they say, there's a lot of what they do that's basically poking at a black box, observing the *results*, and then *inferring* rules and processes that occur in the black box. Proof is in the result, not in actual observation of of the processes.
 
How exactly can you disprove that souls exist when we currently have no tangible way of testing it either way? We don't even know what a "soul" is, aside from the claim that it is essentially sentient software governing the hardware that is the human body. If you examine it from that direction, then Brian Cox's ranting about particle interactions is especially stupid because soul software obviously wouldn't interact with body hardware in a way that you can physically see.

But to be fair to the guy, Brian Cox just finishes by saying "fuck it, I dunno" which is about as honest an answer as you can get. This is just tabloid sensationalism at its finest.
 
Just because we haven't detected something yet doesn't mean it's not there, our scientific understanding of the world 100 years ago was completely different than today and it'll be completely different in another 100 years too.

It definitely seems incredibly arrogant and close minded to me to assume that we have a fairly full scope of reality today, we almost assuredly don't.

If you ask me all you have to do is look at a person's eyes or even an animal's eyes that there's something there, there's some essence beyond our physical selves that give us our consciousness.
It's called sentience. Does that mean when you die it goes on an interdimensional ride to see grandma and Elvis and Genghis Khan?

Fuck no. Nor is it science's responsibility to disprove that claim as they aren't the ones making it. If you have a hypothesis it is on you to find evidence for it not on everyone else to disprove it.
 
"Oh-Oh yeah science guy if you're so smart why don't you know literally everything got em few that was close"

Souls are the ultimate form of copium.

Oh no! I'm going to die one day and can't do anything to stop it! I-its OK tho because I'll totally go to a better place once that happens! Trust the plan!
Oh no! People are living hedonistic sinful lives while I'm stuck here doing work! I-its OK tho because they'll get punished while I'm at the good place! Trust the plan!
Oh no! Terrible things are happening all the time but its just a test trust the plan its OK man!
Dude, I'm.an atheist materialist, too, but I haven't forgotten that that, too, is a matter of belief. Stop being so mad and watch Vikings with us. Floki a real nigga.
 
Not to put words in your mouth, but the belief in an omniscient god who can predict the future (if that is what you believe) also strongly implies a lack of free will. If your future is pre-determined, you don't have free will.
It doesn't unless said deity makes you choose the actions you take. Knowing what choices you ultimately make is not the same as forcing you to make specific decisions. It is hard to wrap your head around, but it is possible.
 
Obligatory meeeeem
obligatory.png
 
Death dijo:
THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY.
 
lol stupid science man says nontangible thing must have tangible effects because he didn't bother to look into the subject. atheists think this is a homerun grand slam because you have to accept their worldview like trannyshit.


e: an alternate take https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...-god-religion-joe-rogan-universe-theology-spt
theexpress.co.uk dijo:
The debate between science and religion over God is millennia old. At one point in history it was impermissible to suggest God didn't exist. In a handful of countries even today, Atheism - a disbelief in the existence of God(s) - is punishable by death.

In the 18th century, in the midst of the Enlightenment, where politics, philosophy and science were radically uprooted, Atheism grew in influence.

The trend has only continued with the advent of public intellectuals who broadcast their own advances in science and technology via the mainstream media.

Stephen Hawking is perhaps the best-known scientist to have done this, introducing the complexities of theoretical physics to a sprawling audience.

Professor Brian Cox is another who has popularised physics among the public, in particular, how the stars, planets, universe, and humans came into being.

While rejecting the label atheist, Prof Cox has previously said he has "no personal faith".

Yet, during an appearance on Joe Rogan's 'PowerfulJRE' podcast in 2019, the scientist admitted there was a gap in which the existence of a God, or Gods, could fit within science.

It came as the pair talked about Prof Cox and his colleagues helping to simplify physics for the masses.

Prof Cox said: "What we should say is that science, we don't know all the answers, so we don't know where the laws of nature came from, and we don't know why the universe began in the way that it did, if indeed it had a beginning.


"We don't know why the Big Bang was very highly ordered which ultimately shows that the only difference between the past and the future - the so-called arrow of time - is that in the past the universe was really ordered, and it's getting more disordered.

"And that necessary state of order at the start of the universe, which is really the reason we exist - because the universe began in a particular form - we don't know why that was.

"We'll probably find out at some point and it'll probably have something to do with the laws of nature."

It was at this point that the physicist said he was eager not to come across as pompous.


He continued: "But I'm always careful, science can sometimes sound arrogant, it can sound like it's the discipline of saying to people, 'Well you're not right., but it's not that, it's actually saying, 'This is what we've found out.'

"I like to say it provides a framework in which, if you want to philosophise or you want to do theology - you want to ask these deep questions about why we're here - you have to operate in that framework because it's an observational framework."

He went on to say that science is unable to answer "ultimate questions" at the moment, including whether the universe had a beginning.

Prof Cox also said the universe "might be eternal" and that science might discover this at a later stage.

Astronomy: Historically, meteor showers were associated with an act of God

Astronomy: Historically, meteor showers were associated with an act of God (Image: Express Newspapers)
This would, however, likely diminish the case for a Creator, as: "What place is there for a creator in something that is eternal?"

Others are less ambiguous in their stance on a God.

Professor Richard Dawkins, the biologist and staunch Atheist, has several times shut down the argument for the existence of a Creator in the faces of religious leaders and believers around the world.

In an interview with The Sun last year, Prof Dawkins refused to accept the idea that religion can fill in the blanks science has left.

He said: “The first thing to say is that it’s another of these gaps where even if science can’t answer it, it doesn’t mean religion can.

“There’s absolutely no reason to think that because science can’t answer a particular question, therefore religion can.

“Maybe science will answer it, maybe it won’t, but if it won’t then certainly religion can’t answer it.”

While the scientist's career has been full of breaking apart religion, he himself has been snubbed by a handful of religious figureheads.

In 2016, after suffering a stroke, the Church of England offered their condolences on Twitter, and wrote: "Prayers for Prof Dawkins and his family."

It was interpreted as the ultimate rebuff an atheist could receive.

The Church later defended the comment, and said it was a "genuine tweet offering prayer for a public person who was unwell".
 
Última edición:
The concept of a soul is so abstract that of COURSE you're not going to find it. It's not a literal cloud of gas surrounding us. It's an entity that makes us who we are.

Anyway, I never understood why jackasses like this have to exist to fuck people up emotionally. Like...go study your particles. But let little Timmy believe he's going to see his dead mommy again one day.

Anyway, I believe in a soul. I also believe we go on somehow. And believing is an even stronger force than fedora science ever will hope to be.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo