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."
 
I don't know how free will would even work without a supernatural.

I think what makes a lack of free will so hard for people to imagine is they put themselves outside of the system when the system in question is the universe. As in, they think "well, I thought about doing this thing, and then I did it, ergo free will." This makes the mind something that exists outside of reality.

In a no free will system, you can think "I'll prove I have free will! Watch me wiggle my toes for no reason!" because you are so constituted as to have that reaction and thought.

The "muh quantum physics" argument is definitely dead on arrival. If events at a very small level are random or probabilistic, that still doesn't imply a choice. God playing dice with the universe doesn't mean YOU choose how the dice fall.

It also doesn't do away with responsibility. If you do a bad thing, under no free will, it means you're the kind of person who does bad things. You either have the ability to reorganize yourself and do better, as a self-correcting system, or you can't do better, which would make you a bad person the way a spark plug can go bad. In either case, responsibility still exists. You're not Pinnocchio because there need not be a Gepetto.

It does rather negate the idea of sin, I suppose, but then, I don't know how sin works with no supernatural, either.
 
I wonder what he would say about consciousness, since that’s a property that doesn’t look particularly different to any other electrical signals
Exactly my thought!
He answered the question appropriately enough in regards that as far as modern physics is concerned. Though him assuming it would have to go beyond the scope of the 4 fundamental forces is madding.
It also seems like life itself would go beyond those 4 forces. Maybe i'm just ignorant, but i'm not sure how physics explains the problem that death is a (currently) irreversible state. All the forces are there, but the life is irreparably lost (even before decomp sets in).

I'm not saying that he's wrong (I doubt there's observable evidence of a soul) but also i'm not sure it adequately explains other aspects of life that are observable.
 
It also doesn't do away with responsibility. If you do a bad thing, under no free will, it means you're the kind of person who does bad things. You either have the ability to reorganize yourself and do better, as a self-correcting system, or you can't do better, which would make you a bad person the way a spark plug can go bad. In either case, responsibility still exists. You're not Pinnocchio because there need not be a Gepetto.

It does rather negate the idea of sin, I suppose, but then, I don't know how sin works with no supernatural, either.

libs love environmental determinism and use it to excuse any shitty ghetto behavior.
 
If such a force existed within us, it would strongly react with the particles our bodies are made of.
Yes, the dark matter in-between all of our atoms is perpetually tearing us apart. It's how we detected this undetectable, inert substance after all.

I have no idea who Brian Cox is but this sentence says all I need to know about him:
The popstar-turned-scientist appeared on the Joe Rogan Podcast where he discussed the idea of humans having souls, among other topics.
 
I have no idea who Brian Cox is but this sentence says all I need to know about him:
Someone ought to tell him that, while he may have had consciousness-expanding experiences from it, trying DMT does not make you an expert on the supernatural. I can understand the confusion though.
 
How does one have so little imagination, so little idea of the metaphysical that they try to measure the physicality of a soul?

Imagine being that scientist. Absolutely joyless miserable pedant.
 
It's as if his final statement is "it's possible, but we have yet to find evidence based on our understanding of how matter works", which is as honest as anyone can get on the matter.

This article said absolutely nothing. It's the same old "God of the gaps" paradox.

I don't care one way or another. If there is an afterlife, fine. If not, you won't care anyways...

Also, wasn't this perticuliar Rogan episode from years ago?
 
"We can't detect love at a particle level, therefore I'm not actually a virgin." - Dr. Brian Cocks
 
Have they come up with an explanation yet for why the standard laws of physics work pretty good for everything after the first Planck instant following the Big Bang, and also work pretty good for explaining the state of things before the Big Bang actually happened, but in that first Planck instant, nothing makes fucking sense? They keep looking for the God particle and keep getting disappointed. Remember the Virgin Higgs boson? People call it disappointing because it didnt wrap everything up in a neat little package with a pretty bow on it for them. I wonder what the next Virgin explanation will be. Chad Universe stuffs them all in a locker then bangs their crush, and their crush's BFF, at the same time. Always.

Physics has undergone like three massive revolutions in the last 130 years, but we definitely have it pretty much figured out now. Except for all those particles we keep discovering that kinda sorta fit in with what we thought but we gotta jigger with what we thought because they only kinda sorta fit in.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is the most scientific statement ever made, never yet been proven wrong or even close, and that little hypothesis was devised by a fucking poet. Another poet came up with "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" Which is also more scientific than anything Richard Dawkins or Brian Cox or any of these fart sniffers have ever come up with, describing them perfectly as it does. Science is heaven now, it's heavens all the way down.
 
I didn't know about this guy until now. He looks exactly like the kind of person that would make this sort of statement.

greasy.jpg
 
I'm really not the religious type or anything, but maybe there are some things we just can't explain with science, life after death and the existence of the soul being two of them.
I somehow doubt there's anything though (since our reality doesn't operate on magic and wishful thinking), I imagine death being probably just like when you fall asleep but before you start dreaming aka the part you never remember. An eternity of nothing.

The whole topic of reality and being is some deep shit, yo.
 
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
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.
I didn't say God was "making you" do anything. Nor is that a prerequisite for a lack of free will. Whether it's electro-chemical reactions or just the nature of your "soul" that is determining your actions, the fact that those actions are predetermined and set in stone without possibility for change is what makes the illusion of choice exactly that: an illusion.


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?
The real answer is "we don't know." But a lot of ideas revolve around the idea that the universe didn't really have a beginning or that the question is meaningless in some other way (can you measure "time" before the existence of time?).
 
Have they come up with an explanation yet for why the standard laws of physics work pretty good for everything after the first Planck instant following the Big Bang, and also work pretty good for explaining the state of things before the Big Bang actually happened, but in that first Planck instant, nothing makes fucking sense? They keep looking for the God particle and keep getting disappointed. Remember the Virgin Higgs boson? People call it disappointing because it didnt wrap everything up in a neat little package with a pretty bow on it for them. I wonder what the next Virgin explanation will be. Chad Universe stuffs them all in a locker then bangs their crush, and their crush's BFF, at the same time. Always.

Physics has undergone like three massive revolutions in the last 130 years, but we definitely have it pretty much figured out now. Except for all those particles we keep discovering that kinda sorta fit in with what we thought but we gotta jigger with what we thought because they only kinda sorta fit in.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is the most scientific statement ever made, never yet been proven wrong or even close, and that little hypothesis was devised by a fucking poet. Another poet came up with "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" Which is also more scientific than anything Richard Dawkins or Brian Cox or any of these fart sniffers have ever come up with, describing them perfectly as it does. Science is heaven now, it's heavens all the way down.
I kinda wish Kiwi Farms had a sperg thread for atheist vs. religious debates. Especially since I recently read about Dawkins' actual arguments and they seem all to be either "LOL religion dumb and weird" or treating Christianity as the only argument for a godlike being, and thus any contradiction in the bible somehow proves god doesn't exist.
 
Waiting for the Gantz ending to become true; where our "souls" are just a few grams of data that gets recycled and is nothing more than specks of dust to higher beings.
 
The real answer is "we don't know." But a lot of ideas revolve around the idea that the universe didn't really have a beginning or that the question is meaningless in some other way (can you measure "time" before the existence of time?).

I thought the steady state theory was pretty much abandoned. As for measuring time before the existence of time, that just doesn't imply, it outright declares that there was (and still could be) a state of existence that is indescribable by any method we can employ, ie something outside science, ie smirking atheist I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE crowd BTFO'd*

*Which doesnt mean religious ideas are necessarily correct, just that they cant be discounted by hurr durr materialist 'refutations.'

As for free will, arguments against it are unconvincing. They're essentially a species of

1. Gather underpants
2. ???
3. Profit!

In the case of determinism, 1. (stimuli) and 2. (deterministic process response to 1.) can be identical but 3. (choice made) can and does vary so widely that the concept of 3. being 'determined' stretches that word past the breaking point.
 
Última edición:
A soul can be understood as the consciousness. Can that survive body death? Instead he just erects some stupid strawman.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo