Science 

There is NO life after death: Scientist insists afterlife is IMPOSSIBLE

Sean Carroll, a cosmologist and physics professor at the California Institute of Technology, believes he has put the debate surrounding the afterlife to bed after extensively studying the laws of physics.

Dr Carroll states “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood” and everything happens within the realms of possibility.

He says for there to be an afterlife, consciousness would need to be something that is entirely separated from our physical body – which it is not.

Rather, consciousness at the very basic level is a series of atoms and electrons which essentially give us our mind.

The laws of the universe do not allow these particles to operate after our physical demise, according to Dr Carroll

He said: “Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die.”

For his evidence, Dr Carroll points to the Quantum Field Theory (QFT). In simple terms, the QFT is the belief there is one field for each type of particle.

For example, all the photons in the universe are on one level, and all the electrons too have their own field, and for every other type of particle too.

Dr Carroll explains if life continued in some capacity after death, tests on the quantum field would have revealed “spirit particles” and “spirit forces”.

Dr Carroll writes in the Scientific American: “If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death. 

“Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model. 

“Most importantly, we need some way for that ‘new physics’ to interact with the atoms that we do have.

“Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of ‘spirit particles’ and ‘spirit forces’ that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments.”

Once this is accepted by all scientists, Dr Carroll says, then they can truly begin to understand how the human mind operated.

He said: “There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. 

“Once we get over any reluctance to face reality on this issue, we can get down to the much more interesting questions of how human beings and consciousness really work.”

Related posts

8 Thoughts to “There is NO life after death: Scientist insists afterlife is IMPOSSIBLE”

  1. Sean Carroll
    ||“Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die.”||

    My Response:
    1) First of all, we have this thing called the mind-body problem. It exists because physical laws, dealing as they do with the purely quantitative and hence that which is measurable, cannot *in principle* explain consciousness.

    So it doesn’t matter how well current physical laws are understood. They cannot be a complete description of reality since they leave out consciousness.

    2) Consciousness is not information. To suppose it is to my mind presupposes some type of materialism, and hence begs the question.

    3) There’s this persistent misunderstanding, and one that Carroll seems to share, that scientific theories describe reality in their totality. But that’s not what we learn from the history of science. The history of science teaches us that our theories give approximations only, even if those approximations might be very close approximations. Generally, our old scientific theories are often perfectly adequate to describe a given domain, but break down when attempting to describe that which resides outside that domain. Thus, the science prior to relativity and quantum mechanics is “wrong”, however, that does nothing to prevent the Newtonian mechanical description of reality being able to be used to get us to the moon and back. In addition, the classical mechanics espoused before the advent of Quantum Mechanics is perfectly adequate to describe the macroscopic realm, even though it might be “wrong”. Quantum Mechanics is only needed when we describe the microscopic realm.

    Now, consciousness has only existed for a vanishingly small part of the history of the Universe and is confined to planets which presumably will be very few and far between. I suggest that current physical laws describes non-conscious reality — that is to say the overwhelming majority of the physical realm — to a very close approximation, just as classical mechanics describes the macroscopic realm to a very close approximation. But that it breaks downs when it comes to consciousness, just as classical mechanics breaks down with the physics of the very small.

    Carroll
    ||“If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death”||.

    My Response:
    Indeed, but he is presupposing materialism. This is question begging (moreover, I have argued elsewhere that materialism is untenable).

    Carroll
    ||“Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of ‘spirit particles’ and ‘spirit forces’ that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments.”||

    My Response:
    First of all, the self needn’t interact with the physical world via “spirit particles” (whatever they are), but rather directly. Secondly, these experiments do have to take place where we know that consciousness plays a role since, obviously, no influence by consciousness will be noted where no consciousness exists.

  2. Carroll
    ||“There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science”||.

    But that’s simply false since, unless you assume some type of materialism, or epiphenomalist dualism (which are philosophically untenable positions), then modern science wholly leaves out the existence of consciousness in its description of reality.

    Now, if modern science wholly leaves out embodied consciousness, how on earth does Carroll believe it can rule out disembodied consciousness?

    It all boils down to the acceptance of materialism. That is the key. He assumes materialism is correct and doesn’t even provide any arguments how he imagines it could *possibly* be correct, least of all just to assume it is.

  3. Mason

    If the soul originates from a region outside of our Universe, that creates a bona fide Scientific dilemma. How can one prove the existence of something that arose from outside of the Universe when one only has access to tools from this Universe? Our Souls may be partially or completely alien to this Universe. That would make the existence of the Soul unprovable, using the tools of Science and Scientific methods….

  4. People might want to know why I’m so sure that materialism is wrong. I’ve written a blogpost on this.

    http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/neither-modern-materialism-nor-science.html

    I get the impression that many physicists — including Carroll — have the impression that the very success of science somehow supports materialism. But that is simply flat out false. If anyone thinks the success of science somehow supports materialism then they need to advance arguments for this. They won’t be able to because there aren’t any.

  5. Actual skeptic

    Is this satire? The presumptions -not facts- presented here have been well discredited. The mind does not originate within nor is it localized to the body.

    Us governmwnt has used remote viewing “psychic spies” in intwlligence gathering for decades. This is to say nothing of the large number of near death or afterlife encounters people have experienced.

    Acedemic science institutions are a theocracy. Period.

  6. Seamus

    How many neurons are needed to boot up a mind? What happens when you get that magic number together, is there a sudden state change, like water into steam? Is consciousness dependent on substrate? If I cut my brain in half and put both halves in cloned bodies, which body gets my mind, and which one gets a new mind? If materialism can describe consciousness, it should be able to answer these questions.

  7. Kam

    Very impressed by the comments here. Seems there are a lot more people these days who use their brains and don’t fall for this utter bullshit religious materialist dogma. As Ian Warell has said materialism is wrong. It’s so so wrong and has been falsified over and over yet you have old school dogmatic spokespeople like Carrol who ignore anything that doesn’t fit into their worldview and continue preaching to the blind. This entire article is the definition of wishful thinking.

  8. Sara

    “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood”

    false premise. If your premise is false, the rest of your claim falls apart. They aren’t completely understood and you’d think that a professional scientist would know that.

Leave a Comment