Does reincarnation violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[The One called Neo]

Someone in banter claimed precisely this. But surely a pre-existing person entering a fetus wouldn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics anymore so than if a new self is created ex nihilo?

Thoughts please.

[MRC_Hans]

As long as we dont know what enegies are involved with souls, it doesn't make sense to talk about the laws of termodynamics. Also, a fetus is not a closed system, so the second law is not applicable at all.

Hans

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is difficult to discuss without defining exactly what the soul (or whatever) is and, in particular, how it maintains coherence when it is disembodied. I think it is the coherence issue that bothers people in relation to 2LoT.

~~ Paul

[Zombified]

I'm not even sure how I'd go about evaluating this. First, you'd have to start with some definition of "soul" or whatever that you can say is reincarnated, and define what the effect of having one is.

First, the body is not a closed system (we'd starve to death) so applying the 2nd law to a living organism requires care (see also Creationism). Even if you took that into account, however, if a "soul" has a physical effect on the body (brain?) then you have to consider the "soul" a physical input to the system, thermodynamically. So as ridiculous as reincarnation may be, I don't know that the 2nd law really has any bearing on the subject.

A more interesting question is that if the "soul" is a physical thing (if it influences the brain physically, it is physical by definition), then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would likely apply to it. It must therefore be explained why disembodied "souls" are stable and don't break down themselves. If the psychics' descriptions of "souls" are anywhere near the mark, "souls" are not anywhere near thermodynamic equilibrium.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Zombified


A more interesting question is that if the "soul" is a physical thing (if it influences the brain physically, it is physical by definition),



I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Neo said:I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics.
This won't work, unless everything we call physical is really just some kind of illusion projected by the soul. If the physical has a separate, external existence, then there is no way the soul can interact with it unless the soul is also physical.

So, we're left with some kind of mind/soul/being/matrix thing that projects the physical. In that case, I agree it doesn't have to be subject to physical laws. But then the term reincarnation doesn't even make sense. In fact, what's the point of my projected physical body dying at all? Heck, why do I have a projected physical body?

~~ Paul

[Zombified]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics. That was a deliberately provocative statement. :) If something has a physical effect, then in principle at least I ought to be able to design an experiment that detects the effect. That's what I consider "discerned from a third person perspective." Calling something material or nonmaterial is a matter of interpretation, I am only interested in operational measurements.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics. Again, what is soul? Sure it might in itself transcend the physical laws, but its effect on the physical being must be within them.

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
...Heck, why do I have a projected physical body?

~~ Paul

And also, why do "energy fields" find it worthwhile (or be caused) to assemble into more & more complex structures?

Is 2nd Law actually a "Law"? IIRC there are strictly mathematical "proofs" that it must be so, but is this logically a-priori, or actually a model based on the scientific view of material as we perceive it?

Or, is this just another very dumb question?

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Again, what is soul? Sure it might in itself transcend the physical laws, but its effect on the physical being must be within them.

Hans

Well this is the term that everyone else is using. I guess it simply means the self with the implication that this self is neither identical to, is a function of, or is caused by the physical world.

I'm unclear as to your meaning in the latter part of your statement.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:And also, why do "energy fields" find it worthwhile (or be caused) to assemble into more & more complex structures?
These questions are all meaningless until we define what this soul thing is. If it's physical energy (e.g., electromagnetic), then it's subject to 2LoT and someone needs to explain how it remains coherent. If it's not physical, then I suppose it can do anything it wants except affect physical things.

~~ Paul

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


Well this is the term that everyone else is using. I guess it simply means the self with the implication that this self is neither identical to, is a function of, or is caused by the physical world.

I'm unclear as to your meaning in the latter part of your statement. As Paul says, the soul (if such exists) is independent of the physical world, to physical laws don't apply to it. However, if it somehow influences the physical world, there must be a boundary past which it must adhere to physical laws.

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Hammegk said:
These questions are all meaningless until we define what this soul thing is. If it's physical energy (e.g., electromagnetic), then it's subject to 2LoT and someone needs to explain how it remains coherent. If it's not physical, then I supposed it can do anything it wants except affect physical things.

~~ Paul

Soul is imo an unnecessary complication. Also, your final sentence restates the reason I find Dualism an unsustainable, in any meaningful sense, position.

I.E. Life up to & including human consciousness is a manifestation of (inert) matter, or

Matter is a manifestation of "something else" and by deduction that is "life -- up to & including human consciousness". And what is life if not "energetic" exemplified?

Can we say hi Jack??? Sorry, I'll stop this line of comment, here.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by hammegk
And also, why do "energy fields" find it worthwhile (or be caused) to assemble into more & more complex structures?

Is 2nd Law actually a "Law"? IIRC there are strictly mathematical "proofs" that it must be so, but is this logically a-priori, or actually a model based on the scientific view of material as we perceive it?

Or, is this just another very dumb question? The 2nd law is very well established by both theory (which includes mathematical reasoning) and by experiment. Such things as engines and fridges depend on the 2nd law.

To understand the 2nd law you really have understand what it actually means, which includes understanding the definition of entropy, which has to do with the accessible states of a system. A system in equilibrium maximizes the number of accessible states. A system not in equilibrium is somehow constrained to a smaller number of states. This is sometimes interpreted as "randomness" because the probability of finding a system in a particular state is inversely proportional to the number of accessible states, but describing entropy as randomness is often misleading. But that does *not* mean an ordered or nonequilibrium system is violating the second law; systems not in equilibrium invariably depend on extracting energy from an environment not in equilibrium.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zombified
...Such things as engines and fridges depend on the 2nd law.
Or as I would say, use available energy to locally contravene 2nd Law.

To understand the 2nd law you really have understand what it actually means, which includes understanding the definition of entropy, which has to do with the accessible states of a system. A system in equilibrium maximizes the number of accessible states. A system not in equilibrium is somehow constrained to a smaller number of states. This is sometimes interpreted as "randomness" because the probability of finding a system in a particular state is inversely proportional to the number of accessible states, but describing entropy as randomness is often misleading. But that does *not* mean an ordered or nonequilibrium system is violating the second law; systems not in equilibrium invariably depend on extracting energy from an environment not in equilibrium.
Yeah, I get some of that that. IIRC the math proof is dependent on "accessable states" and ? degrees of freedom (or, is that the same thing). And yes back to "randomness" -- a subject discussed from many viewpoints many times many threads.

How would we determine if a given "energy field" is or is not in equilibrium? What is a "local energy field", in that all would to me seem infinite in extent?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by hammegk

Or as I would say, use available energy to locally contravene 2nd Law.That is an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd law.Yeah, I get some of that that. IIRC the math proof is dependent on "accessable states" and ? degrees of freedom (or, is that the same thing). And yes back to "randomness" -- a subject discussed from many viewpoints many times many threads.More degrees of freedom means more accessible states, which has to be taken into consideration when you don't have a constant number of particles (a photon gas or phonons in a nonideal solid, for example).How would we determine if a given "energy field" is or is not in equilibrium? What is a "local energy field", in that all would to me seem infinite in extent? Wherever there's an energy differential, there's nonequilibrium. I'm not sure what you mean about energy fields of (in)finite extent.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zombified
That is an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd law.
How about this; It is interesting that the 2nd Law tendency towards universal randomness is contravened locally so often by utilizing energy, from particle formation in the vacuum up though human life. ;)


(a photon gas or phonons in a nonideal solid, for example).

Er, is there a difference between photon gas and say, a light beam? First I've ever heard of phonons or nonideal solids. When did these enter the vernacular?

Wherever there's an energy differential, there's nonequilibrium. I'm not sure what you mean about energy fields of (in)finite extent.
Er, where ISN't there an energy differential?

Infinite is incorrect -- expansion at c from source limits thems. Last I heard gravity fields "most likely -- but still not at 100% certainty" propogate at c.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by hammegk
How about this; It is interesting that the 2nd Law tendency towards universal randomness is contravened locally so often by utilizing energy, from particle formation in the vacuum up though human life. ;) There are situations where the entropy of a non-isolated part of a system decreases, but that does not involve a violation of the second law, since the second law specifically refers to isolated systems. When the total system is examined which surrounds all the inputs and outputs to various parts, the 2nd law still holds. Calling these cases violations of the 2nd law is like saying conservation of mass is violated when you flush the toilet.
Er, is there a difference between photon gas and say, a light beam? First I've ever heard of phonons or nonideal solids. When did these enter the vernacular?
Hmm, poor choice of examples on my part. Sorry. An example of a photon gas would be the infrared photons in the interior of a heated chamber. Phonons are a quantum mechanical description of vibrations in the atomic structure of a solid; in real solids there are imperfections which cause the phonons to interact with one another. These are, however, examples where the number of particles is not constant, and each new particle brings with it additional degrees of freedom. So the number of accessible states, and therefore the entropy, is partly a function of how many particles you expect there to be.
Er, where ISN't there an energy differential?A uniform gas at uniform temperature, for example.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zombified
...When the total system is examined which surrounds all the inputs and outputs to various parts, the 2nd law still holds. Calling these cases violations of the 2nd law is like saying conservation of mass is violated when you flush the toilet.
Agreed, but where does toilet end? We are talking at cross purpose I believe.

An example of a photon gas would be the infrared photons in the interior of a heated chamber.
OK. Got 'ya, but what would that imply viv-a-vis entropy?


A uniform gas at uniform temperature, for example.
How do you propose to shield the container of gas from gravitational gradient, other energy fields, & other non-static energetic effects like neutrinos? Or am I totally missing the point?

I know for sure we've hijacked a thread on reincarnation. Sorry, II. :p

[GreyWanderer]

Zombified: you really know a lot about a lot of stuff

[Zombified]

Originally posted by GreyWanderer
Zombified: you really know a lot about a lot of stuff ...well, some things about some stuff, I hope. :)
Originally posted by hammegk
Agreed, but where does toilet end? We are talking at cross purpose I believe.Well, I'm just trying to make the point that the 2nd law is explicit about when its conclusion applies, so it isn't violated just because entropy increases locally in some situations.
OK. Got 'ya, but what would that imply viv-a-vis entropy?
You were wondering about degrees of freedom vs. accessible states, and that's partly right because increasing the degrees of freedom is one of the things that increases the number of accessible states. More particles = more degrees of freedom.
How do you propose to shield the container of gas from gravitational gradient, other energy fields, & other non-static energetic effects like neutrinos? Or am I totally missing the point?
That's an idealization, or if you prefer, an approximation when other influences are sufficiently small. Rest assured the influence of neutrinos on the frosty cold ones in your fridge is negligable.

[athon]

I wrote a short story on this once, and used it as the basis of several other concepts.

Here was my way of justifying it - souls were simply patterns of 'creation' - anything that was arranged in a certain way was deemed to be at one with 'creation', or in other words, god.

So souls were pieces of god torn away. When a person died, they slowly moved through the tiers of creation (angel, arch-angel, etc.) until they lost all individuality and became one with creation again. Every now and then this didn't work as it should have, and a soul was returned.

In other words, souls were like 'water' - sometimes they were part of the ocean, and sometimes individual drops of rain. Water is never created or destroyed. Neither were souls.

Mind you, this was simply a spec' fiction idea, and exists only in my twisted mind.

Athon

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by athon
I wrote a short story on this once, and used it as the basis of several other concepts.

Here was my way of justifying it - souls were simply patterns of 'creation' - anything that was arranged in a certain way was deemed to be at one with 'creation', or in other words, god.

So souls were pieces of god torn away. When a person died, they slowly moved through the tiers of creation (angel, arch-angel, etc.) until they lost all individuality and became one with creation again. Every now and then this didn't work as it should have, and a soul was returned.

In other words, souls were like 'water' - sometimes they were part of the ocean, and sometimes individual drops of rain. Water is never created or destroyed. Neither were souls.

Mind you, this was simply a spec' fiction idea, and exists only in my twisted mind.

Athon

Sounds a really good story.

[jimlintott]

First of all I am essentially a lay person. I hold no degrees in any field of science. This strikes me as a totally absurd question. In my mind I would want to see proof of reincarnation before any questions about it can be answered. Why not ask what colour is reincarnation or does reincarnation wear underwear? To me unless there is proof of reincarnation there is no point asking any questions about it. Is there something wrong with this logic?

If I was to answer this question I would be inclined to say if reincarnation is actually real then no it doesn't violate the second law because this law is something than anything real has to exist with.

I still think that this question should be answered with a question. What is reincarnation?

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by jimlintott
First of all I am essentially a lay person. I hold no degrees in any field of science. This strikes me as a totally absurd question. In my mind I would want to see proof of reincarnation before any questions about it can be answered. Why not ask what colour is reincarnation or does reincarnation wear underwear? To me unless there is proof of reincarnation there is no point asking any questions about it. Is there something wrong with this logic?

If I was to answer this question I would be inclined to say if reincarnation is actually real then no it doesn't violate the second law because this law is something than anything real has to exist with.

I still think that this question should be answered with a question. What is reincarnation?

I am in agreement that it is an absurd question in as much as clearly reincarnation doesn't contravene the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

But the essential point is this. If the concept of reincarnation was indeed incompatible with the 2nd LOTD, then whatever evidence we might suppose we have for reincarnation will be irrelevant, as we might suppose reincarnation could not possibly occur if it involves contravening the laws of physics.

Reincarnation is the thesis that the self or soul has in the past, and will in the future, experience being reborn in different bodies.

[Dr. Popalot]

I am too in agreement that it is an absurd question. There must first be proof that a "soul" inhabits the body. Second that this "soul" doesn't die with the body. Once these two things are established then a question of reincarnation can be raised.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
I am too in agreement that it is an absurd question. There must first be proof that a "soul" inhabits the body. Second that this "soul" doesn't die with the body. Once these two things are established then a question of reincarnation can be raised.

No, on the converse, I would say we need proof that a materialist based metaphysic is correct. Until such proof is forthcoming we can speculate on the nature and mechanisms of reincarnation.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by The One called Neo

I would say we need proof that a materialist based metaphysic is correct. Until such proof is forthcoming we can speculate on the nature and mechanisms of reincarnation.

Doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics arise from the materialist-based metaphysic? If we dispense with the metaphysic, we dispense with the laws of thermodynamics, so does it not remain meaningless to ask about the thermodynamics of the soul?

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by JamesM


Doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics arise from the materialist-based metaphysic?

No. If we were subjective idealists they'd still be this law wouldn't there?

Think if we lived in a matrix like reality. Nothing in our Matrix Universe would be physical or material, but the second law of thermodynamics would still apply.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
I am too in agreement that it is an absurd question.

How about this one? Is the kitty-cat that lives in the center of the Sun a calico or a tabby?

And don't tell me there's no kitty-cat in the center of the Sun unless you've been there. ;)

There must first be proof that a "soul" inhabits the body. Second that this "soul" doesn't die with the body. Once these two things are established then a question of reincarnation can be raised.

It has been theorized that the soul is some kind of coherent energy field. The problem with this (well, one of the problems) is that pure energy moves at the speed of light. At the speed of light, time moves at infinite speed, meaning the soul wouldn't have time to get to the next body before the end of the universe (at least, from the soul's point of view).

When my father died a few years ago, I gained some insight into why so many cultures believe that a soul exists. A dead person looks very different from a live person who is just laying very still and not breathing. It is an intangible difference, and could easily be attributed to the departure of some sort of "life force" when a person dies.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm




It has been theorized that the soul is some kind of coherent energy field.


Who says this? If the self is energy isn't this materialism pure and simple? Sounds very implausible to me. Maybe they're not using the word "energy" in a literal sense?



When my father died a few years ago, I gained some insight into why so many cultures believe that a soul exists. A dead person looks very different from a live person who is just laying very still and not breathing. It is an intangible difference, and could easily be attributed to the departure of some sort of "life force" when a person dies. [/B]

You mean that there doesn't look like there's a soul in there when you look into a dead persons eyes?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
Who says this?People who are not really familiar with the meanings of the words 'theorized', 'energy', 'field', or 'coherent'.

[Dr. Popalot]

aggle_rithm said:

How about this one? Is the kitty-cat that lives in the center of the Sun a calico or a tabby?

And don't tell me there's no kitty-cat in the center of the Sun unless you've been there.

This is a presumptive question. If you are making a claim it is up to you to prove its existance. I am not required to prove it dosn't exist. Rember, the more outrageous the claim, the stronger proof must be to support it. Have you been to the center of the sun?:eek:

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Dr. Popalot
aggle_rithm said:

How about this one? Is the kitty-cat that lives in the center of the Sun a calico or a tabby?

And don't tell me there's no kitty-cat in the center of the Sun unless you've been there.

This is a presumptive question. If you are making a claim it is up to you to prove its existance. I am not required to prove it dosn't exist. Rember, the more outrageous the claim, the stronger proof must be to support it. Have you been to the center of the sun?:eek:

My point was that it is absurd to speculate about properties of something whose existence is only assumed.

An example is JB Rhine's ESP experiments, where he tried to determine the properties of the "radiant energy" of ESP when the evidence he had collected thus far did not support the existence of ESP.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by The One called Neo


Who says this? If the self is energy isn't this materialism pure and simple? Sounds very implausible to me. Maybe they're not using the word "energy" in a literal sense?

The writers of "Star Trek", that's who! ;)


Originally posted by The One called Neo

You mean that there doesn't look like there's a soul in there when you look into a dead persons eyes?

I mean the subtle difference in appearance between a living and dead person could be interpreted as the result of the soul having departed from the body. Could be it is actually due to lack of muscle tone, lipidity, etc. Who knows? I'm not a mortician.

[Dr. Popalot]

aggle_rithm said:

My point was that it is absurd to speculate about properties of something whose existence is only assumed.




I am in complete agreement, that's the position I took with my first reply on this thread. If one wishes to speculate whether some unproven phenomena violates particular laws of physics is a waste of time, but he certainly has the right to speculate. It would certainly be more useful to first prove the phenomena exists and then wonder what it means!;)