I’ve read enough works disproving the afterlife and other religious magic using common sense and reason.
Could someone recommend me a book or any other media (preferably print) that uses, or at least references, quantum mechanics to disprove the afterlife and prove that death is eternal oblivion (lights out, the end of experience, like before you were born)?
I am aware that this is a sticky subject but there is such a thing as the Standard Model of Particle Physics and since there is some standardization surely some intellectuals have used it to disprove magic hocus pocus religious afterlife ideas and confirm the scientific view that death is the end, not a “to be continued”. For example Stephen Hawking declared quite flatly and unambiguously:
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Lights out. No continuation once the components fail. And surely he found this to be supported by quantum mechanics as that was his field and he was an absolute genius. But I'm looking for more of an in depth explanation than a sound bite.
I don’t know for sure, but I doubt any actual scientists have put much energy into disproving the afterlife (or unicorns or ghosts or auras.)
You’re putting way too much work into disproving something that doesn’t exist. People who believe in the afterlife won’t care if a physicist wrote an article using quantum mechanics to disprove an afterlife: they have their own quack ‘scientists’ who specialize in using big words to write fake science-ish books. The supercharged confirmation bias required to be religious will always believe those books because they align with the story already in their head.
I bet that if you just keep reading and learning you’ll eventually learn enough to put the argument together on your own. Who knows, you might end up writing the first book on the topic.
You’re putting way too much work into disproving something that doesn’t exist. People who believe in the afterlife won’t care -- 3pt
I've been trying to figure out how to respond to CJ, and that's pretty succinct. If CJ is serious, s/he is on the wrong track. Only the experience of engaging theists will teach him/her that. If they're not serious, this is a really interesting twist on trolling, taking something that is actually true, but then making up this thing about how you "prove" it. I've seen Christians do this with evolution, they'll ask some dumb question that they think can't be answered, then after a few days they'll pop the "you can't prove it" philosophy on you. This one has been here a while. Seems sincere so far.
I’ve been trying to figure out how to respond to CJ, and that’s pretty succinct. If CJ is serious, s/he is on the wrong track. Only the experience of engaging theists will teach him/her that. If they’re not serious, this is a really interesting twist on trolling, taking something that is actually true, but then making up this thing about how you “prove” it. I’ve seen Christians do this with evolution, they’ll ask some dumb question that they think can’t be answered, then after a few days they’ll pop the “you can’t prove it” philosophy on you. This one has been here a while. Seems sincere so far.
The internet trolls have made genuine inquiry suspect.
I’ve already read and own The Myth of an Afterlife by Michael Martin and Kieth Augustine. However, this book, peculiarly, states in the index only that quantum mechanics is irrelevant to consciousness. But when you follow it to the page, no mention or useful explanation is made.
So it’s only reasonable to think that another author may have elucidated this exact point further.
I’m unsure of how to prove my sincerity and that I am not a troll. I feel that my questions have been reasonable, especially with reference to the fact that the book I mention is exactly authors using science to disprove the afterlife, but missing the quantum angle or at the very least explaining why the quantum angle is irrelevant.
While, to @3point14rat 's credit, I don’t know that any of the authors are “actual scientists”, the book is largely based on scientific fact and reasoning.
How would you suggest I prove my sincerity or write posts that sound more sincere?
For what it’s worth, if Martin and Augustine had been more exhaustive in their collecting of essays than just that vague note in the back of the book, I wouldn’t be asking in the first place. The book is fantastic and fully quelled my religion forced immortality nonsense fears, except for with respect to quantum mechanics.
I don’t know for sure, but I doubt any actual scientists have put much energy into disproving the afterlife (or unicorns or ghosts or auras.)
I recommend The Myth of an Afterlife by Michael Martin and Kieth Augustine. It is a collection of essays using science, reason and logic to disprove the afterlife. Totally complete in my opinion but missing further elaboration on quantum mechanics other than a brief mention, hence this question.
I don’t know if any of the authors are actual scientists but it is a huge number of essays by many different authors so maybe some have scientific background, medical background or are actual scientists.
As far as your suggestion that I learn on my own; I agree and have been learning. But since quantum mechanics is used by so many charlatans and uneducated religious or new age people, it is evident that they are able to do this precisely because this discipline is extremely complex and poorly understood. So, it is very difficult for a layman to understand and it would be nice to read an expert using the science properly to explain why it rules out an afterlife.
How would you suggest I prove my sincerity or write posts that sound more sincere? -- CJ
I would settle for accuracy. If you say the book is based on science, then you would need to know the science at least a little. Or be able to check references and credentials. But you didn’t do that. You say you don’t know if the authors are scientists. How hard is it look them up? I’m not going to do it for you. Also, you don’t seem to understand that a science book is not required to address your question. They say they aren’t going to address quantum physics and then they don’t. That is not a problem.
I would settle for accuracy. If you say the book is based on science, then you would need to know the science at least a little. Or be able to check references and credentials. But you didn’t do that. You say you don’t know if the authors are scientists. How hard is it look them up? I’m not going to do it for you. Also, you don’t seem to understand that a science book is not required to address your question. They say they aren’t going to address quantum physics and then they don’t. That is not a problem.
So, if I list the author of every essay, and their profession (assuming I can even find this info), you'll believe I'm not a troll?
I’m willing to cooperate but this seems a little excessive and a tad hostile. I also fail to see how that would prove anything about my sincerity.
Is it standard procedure here to indirectly accuse new users of being trolls by implying this in a conversation with another user?
I’d certainly be interested to know what I’ve done wrong here. Did I break the terms of service?
Literally just looking for a book recommendation. That would be some really boring trolling.
Actually @lausten, I know how I can prove I’m not a troll!
Trolls enjoy internet arguments. Stirring things up, stating their opinion as the opposite of what it is and then using other people’s words against them, etc.
Let’s look at what I did here:
I posted a question requesting people disprove an afterlife theory. If I was trolling for the motive of proving that an afterlife does exist, there is no evidence for that in the thread. A user kindly provided some refutations for the theory that was troubling me. I thanked them and provided some support for their ideas. So it’s clear I wasn’t trolling. What troll posts a straightforward thread, then agrees with someone who responds to it, and then moves on?
Then I started this thread asking for a book recommendation to further my knowledge on this subject.
I put up with your accusations and provided a reference for my ideas on why science can and should be used to refute afterlife ideas, and stated that more than likely some scientists were authors of some of the many essays. Now you imply that I should have researched the professions of over 25 authors merely to demonstrate to you that I am not a troll (despite that this would not prove this one way or the other). None of this, by the way, has anything to do with the original post which was a simple book recommendation.
The only person who sounds like a troll, the only person posting inflammatory statements and seemingly attempting to stir things up, sir, is you. You’ve got zero reason to accuse me of this, and I’ve got zero reason to accept it.
Now for the proof. I’ll do something no troll would do: Walk away from this baseless and frankly odd accusation. I wish you well, and wash my hands of this silliness.
Trolls make long posts that don’t further the conversation. The book had two authors. That’s who I was referring to. You skipped a couple of my more important points. Which is fine. Whatever. I don’t find you interesting. Why is that a problem?
I’d certainly be interested to know what I’ve done wrong here. Did I break the terms of service?
No, no rules broken. I'll quote them if you do. I listed what I didn't like. It's your prerogative to respond. You might want to get thicker skin if you want to be in forums.
CJ, I think that if you post some reasonable and personable comments on a few other threads, you will be seen as someone worth engaging. I’m not saying you aren’t, but something has my spidey sense tingling and Lausten obviously feels it too.
C’mon out and join a different discussion so we can get to know you a bit. We don’t bite unless provoked… honestly.