Einstein said that energy is never created nor destroyed and everything we are is pure energy, meaning every atom in our body is positively and negatively charged. Our brain is a network of electro-chemical impulses. Our heart beats our muscles move because of electricity. Imagine for a moment a theoretical glass full of water. The water will stay contained in the glass. Now if you were to break that glass the water flows outward in a pool, it doesn’t just disappear. Our body and the energy it contains is the same. Everything that makes us, us is due to energy. Our memories are imprints of varying electric frequencies ,on the positive and negative side of the scale, on biological hard drives in our brains. When we die, this energy, which is our memories, personality, and who we are doesn’t just vanish, it can’t. As recent studies of the levitating frog show, objects once thought to have no magnetic properties can become magnetized and the magnetism is at the atomic level. Now, knowing that the very atoms we are made of can be controlled by magnetism is important because the earth is a very large magnet, with a positive and negative pole. Understanding those links can lead to many interesting ideas.

I’m going to leave this open ended I would like to see what questions or theories might arise from this idea.

This to think about:

When the heart of a fetus beats for the very first time, where does the energy come from to make it first pump. Or what turns on the brain of a fetus and jump starts those electric impulses?

If our electric energy can not be destroyed where does it go?

If the release of this energy could be measured when a person dies, and a scientific theory be created to show that this energy could be placed back into a person I.E. a fetus or other new life form, animal what have you. Would it show that a form of reincarnation is possible?

Einstein was a brilliant person with the most luminous intellect yet to be matched..

if energy can not be created or destroyed but can be altered or displace then energy must therefore retain memory ...but this may only apply to that which is contained within a vacuum

energy once removed from the protection of that vacuum could actually be destroyed

Personally, I think of "memory" as a sequentially, time-oriented series of mental images. In that respect, I don't think that memory is biologicallly based. But whether or not it is made up of physical energy, it seems to me that it must "tag along" with the owner, wherever the owner goes. So I think the only way to "stuff those memories into another life form" is to stuff the owner of the memories into another life form - which would be an exact description of what reincarnation is.

The same source of energy that is used to synthesize proteins in building the fetus is the same source of energy that "kick starts" the beating heart.

Matter can be converted into pure energy, but that does not make them the same.

Remember that the equation is NRG(energy) = Matter X the Speed of light ^2

So Matter Does not equal energy. Not quite. Takes a bit more (big understatement, given the what c^2 actually is)

Energy is not equal to electricity... you seem to use the words as if they are interchangeable, and they absolutely are not. Not even close.

Where does a newborn baby's first energy come from? A digestion process from nutrients fed to the fetus from the umbilical cord from its mother's diet.

What jump starts the baby's heart for the first time? The heart muscles are biologically programmed to beat - when they develop to the point that beating is physically possible, they start up!

Energy isn't positively and negatively charged. Energy is just energy. Atoms and molecules can be electrically charged depending on their composition of subatomic particles. That's unrelated to energy.

Our electric energy is not the same as the energy in the equation e=mc^2. You're really mixing vocabulary here. Our electric energy comes from digestive processes within our cells. When we die, our fuel just stops being converted into functional electricity. Imagine a car when you turn it off - the fuel tank doesn't suddenly disappear, it just sits.

And finally - reincarnation? I think you technically mean resurrection. And the problem there is that our cells degrade and die so immediately quickly after our heart stops beating, the same body functions become impossible. They depend on the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to survive - as soon as that delivery halts, they begin to decay and are very quickly irreparable.

heat, 98.6 degrees to be specific

Mitochondria takes Glucose and makes ATP for your muscles to contract. (chemical energy, or the energy of the change in atoms electron orbits.)

Nerves use Ions channels to communicate, much like modern circuitry uses ion channels in switching.

Life is machinery.

Nathan you sir Rock BTW.

The fundamental principles of the first law of thermodynamics/conservation of energy (matter not being created nor destroyed)go way further back than Einstein.

I tend to believe/adhere to the "robbing Peter to pay Paul" idiom in regards to this topic.

"Where does a newborn baby's first energy come from? A digestion process from nutrients fed to the fetus from the umbilical cord from its mother's diet". While true, those nurtients are taken from other energy sources. A very simple analogy: Energy released from the sun, grows crops (photosynthesis), is ingested by the mother and converted into a different form of energy. This energy is subsequently transfered to the fetus. This would apply to all "living" organisms regardless of their physiological, biochemical, biological composition.

When we or any other lifeform expires, the energy from us is transfered to other organisms that digest and breaks down the body back into the basic elements, and becomes a part of something else. As per reincarnation/ressurection- not in the sense I shall be exactly as I am. Our bodily composition is merely bits and pieces of someone or something that exsisted before us (in sticking with the laws of thermodynamics). The following generations will be composed of bits and pieces of us and/or other things. To put it into perpective, each one of us has at least one carbon atom in us that came from the last breath of Julius Ceasar.

YAY, we are getting more and more people with physics knowledge! Welcome beeorganic! I am so glad we have a science and philosophy forum now, we can attract the right people to the discussions!

Great points bee, we are all star dust that has evolved due to being fed energy from nuclear fusion that was fed due to gravity.

I too am happy to see that we now have a Science and Philosophy forum.

So now instead of the three-sided arguments (science/philosophy/religion) we only have to deal with two sides (science/pholosophy).

So I'm going to take the "philosophy" side on this one, largely because I am not encumbered by too much physics indoctrination. (Just kidding guys! )

My main point of contention with the purely scientific view is that it excludes free-will.

The fundamental premise of all science is the deterministic, cause-effect nature of everything physical. The fundamental hypothesis is that there is no true cause. There is only effect. Everything is the effect of something previous. Everything must happen exactly as it has happened, because the rules say it could not have happened any other way. The entire physical universe, and everything in it, is nothing but a giant stimulus-response mechanism that cannot diverge from the path it was set on 15 billion years ago. It is the very epitome of predestiny with no real possibility of ever changing anything for all eternity.

Well I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that, regardless of how much "evidence" is presented.

The simple fact that I can even conceive of free-will indicates to me that it must exist. And the simple fact that I can make a decision and carry it out, thus effecting change in the physical universe, indicates to me that I do, in fact, have free will.

To paraphrase a famous statement - "I'd rather be wrong with Philosophy than right with Science."

I disagree that science predisposes a lack of free will.

Science is not all determinism. Science many times is probabilistic as much as deterministic.

Sometimes there is no room in some science for determinism.

"The simple fact that I can even conceive of free-will indicates to me that it must exist. And the simple fact that I can make a decision and carry it out, thus effecting change in the physical universe, indicates to me that I do, in fact, have free will."

Does that mean that since I can imagine a flying spaghetti monster that is must there for be real?

The jury is out on free will, I don't think anything in biology dictates free will, physics is unclear . . . essentially if we take classical physics it makes it appear that everything can be determined by cause and effect, and some things are just beyond our calculation power to completely determine yet (tornadoes, weather systems gravity waves ect) However QM flies in the face of determinism, and provides probabilities for everything at the Quantum level.

Our brains make use of Quantum mechanics to allow the nerves to communicate at the speeds they do, and we do the same thing with QM in computers, and will rely more and more on it as tech progresses.

I disagree that science as a whole in any way has addressed free will. I am going to be picking up a book by Dan Dennet that addresses free will in Biology, that should be interesting.

SkyHook- I've been pondering your "free-will" versus the absolutes/finites of "cause and effect" post for the past forty-five minutes, correction, make that an hour and a half now. You've really opened a can of worms . I'm not attempting to change your beliefs, just tossing this out here for consideration.

I've been trying to come up with an example that would support your belief in the exclusion of "free-will" in regards to science but I can't. Using technology as my model: 15 billion years ago the computer did not exsist; However, all the elements required to make one exsisted. Through a series of sequential events via human free-will choices (including accidental discoveries), the computer came to be. Personally, I've never seen a contradiction or the exclusion of free-will when dealing with finites of human endeavors with finite resources.

"For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction". This too, I believe would include the use of free-will and limited by the finites. One would only be restricted to the resources present (and that always have been). I believe one (using and old adage) can make "a silk purse out of a sow's ear". It's just a matter of reorganizing the molecular structure through technology that simply hasn't been discovered yet.

I agree with much of that, and I disagree with some of it.

But most of all I want to address this statement: “The jury is still out on free will.”

That’s about as ironic as ironic can possibly be.

It’s like asking for permission to do something so you can do it without asking for permission. It only looks like you don’t need permission because you already got permission.

The fact that you had to ask in the first place takes it out of the realm of “free will” (self-determinism) and makes it “controlled will” (other-determinism).

“May I have some free will please?”

“Sure son, here ya go.” <splat>

Maybe we've just got a semantic problem then.

So when I say science, I'm referring to the postulate that the universe and everything in it is deterministic, plus all the corollaries of that postulate. And the definition I'm using for determinism is: "Every state of affairs, including every human event, act and decision, is the inevitable consequence of preceeding states of affairs." The operative word in that definitioon being "inevitable", which I define as meaning "impossible to avoid or prevent".

Now there’s no dictionary definition for “free-will” so that may be a problem. I use the term “free will” only because it is the most widely known term that comes closest to what I mean. But actually, the term “self-determinism” is a much better term. It means that a decision or choice or determination can be made buy one without any external input. It means that the ability to make a decision or choice has no prerequisites. It is not dependent on anything, either physical or non-physical.

So are we on the same page as far as the semantics goes?

"The jury is still out on free will."

I want to throw in my two cents!

Schrodinger says that the large scale laws we observe in nature are due to chaos on the smallest scales... so we essentially have order coming from disorder. In one of his books, he talks about how diffusion is a very highly ordered and measurable process even though it's caused by the completely random movement of atoms.

In other words - subatomic chaos magnifies into something humans define as "order" - mostly because we ignore the fact that we're completely composed of it. :) We're big, walking, talking versions of the subatomic chaos that confuses us so much.

In order to make any kind of deterministic evaluation, I think you would need a completely-removed frame of reference. Existing in and being made of the particles that we view as "chaotic" makes us completely unreliable to define order and chaos.

In short - I very much believe in free will. Humans can be just as "chaotic" to the universe as electron clouds. Because we are both made from them AND equally chaotic if we were viewed from a much grander scale. Maybe we make our choices based on unknown and unmeasurable (from our frame of reference) statistical distributions just like electrons do - but hey, that's still free choice by our definition baby!

:) I wish I was more eloquent with the ideas I want to express - moral of the story: read Schrodinger.

If I understand correctly, all of what you’ve said is based on the postulate that free will is subject to the laws of the physical universe.

What I’m saying is that I don’t consider that to be free will. At best it is “restricted” or “limited” will. But I would never call it “free” will.

To me, free will is not dependent upon, limited by, or subject to, anything.

Now if you’re saying that you don’t think there is truly such a thing as unrestricted, unlimited, free will, then that’s fine. No problem. We just have a disagreement that is unlikely to be resolved because we’re starting from different postulates.

Sky, what is the refernt or the common symbol you want everyone to relate to when you say "free-will".

Are you speaking subjectively, objectivly (from the human perspective) or universally.

Are you attempting to say that science unites all the properties of the universe, including minds and thoughts and actions derived from those thoughts, as one indivisible and dissassociated progression of events? Such that these events could not proceed unless driven by exacting and divinitive laws of nature?

I guess the main point in that drawn out paragraph would be, do you think that science includes mind, cognitions and the actions stemming from those mysteries as naturally deterministic?

I think not, I think that's why you are getting the kind of responses you are. If every mind was nothing but the sum total of the opertaions of the mechanical brain, then YES we would be completely deterministic. But science can make no such claim and it's obvious why; our own unique way of dealing, of thinking, of acting within this life.

If every human was as deterministic in properties, inclusive of mind/cognition, as the sceince that is required to prove it, then we would not be having this discussion.

Of course there's the chance I'm way off base here, but I needed a break.

Interesting thread everyone.

Sky said:

Redy said:
Long, long ago in a thread far, far away, you told me that science was based on the deterministic viewpoint. I didn’t fully understand what that word meant so, as is my wont, I looked it up in the dictionary. The definition I found is stated above. And according to that definition, and your long ago statement of the foundations of science, your “long drawn out paragraph” is exactly what I was saying.

But from what you’re saying now, it seems I may have misunderstood something somewhere along the way. So if you can figure out what it is, let me know so I can clear it up.

------------------------------------------

To answer your question as to the referent to which the symbol “free will” applies, I attempted to do that in my definitions above. However, I’m not sure I have a full understanding of the implications of this question so I’m not sure if I answered that question as well.

To expound on my original definition…

To me, the simplest statement of free will is that it is the perfect opposite to determinism (per the definition above). Free will is never effect (“free”). Free will is always cause (“will”).

This statement of yours is about as perfect and concise an argument as I could have come up with to illustrate my point
That statement illustrates that the very essence of free will is that it cannot be deterministic – otherwise it would not be free will. And because of that, the deterministic-based science cannot even address the subject of free will because the two are mutually exclusive by definition.

Kudos to Nathan (and secretly cursing him under my breath for for bringing up the "chaos theory" first ). This was going to be addressed in my next comment along with "the butterfly effect). Being new to this site and too uninterested to peruse all the rules, I don't know if it's acceptable to post links or not. The following is from a website at thinkquest.org (just type in "chaos theory and entropy" in a search engine and it should appear). I believe this gives the best explaination for clarification.

"After discussing sensitive dependance, we are ready to summarize the qualities of a chaotic system. A chaotic system has these simple defining features:
Chaotic systems are deterministic. This means they have some determining equation ruling their behavior.
Chaotic systems are sensitive to initial conditions. Even a very slight change in the starting point can lead to significant different outcomes.
Chaotic systems are not random, nor disorderly. Truly random systems are not chaotic, chaos has a sense of order and pattern."

SkyHook- If you could provide an example, hypothetical model, or mathematical equation of your belief, it would be helpful to me. I'm not dismissing your assertions but still require more clarification.

I’m not sure which “belief” you mean, but I think you mean free will, so I’ll take a stab at that.

The simplest and clearest example of free will, that I can think of, would be "imagining something that does not currently exist in the physical universe".

The imagined thing is not in any way dependent upon anything physical.

The decision to imagine it is the exercise of free will - the "cause".

The act of imagining is the effect of that decision, just as the imagined thing is the effect of the action of imagining.

Is that what you meant by an example?