Proof

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

Okay… So the soul, our conscious selves, is atomically constituted as the brain and nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that our conscious selves cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn’t anything to keep the soul together. Has science, and can science, actually disprove the existence of the soul, post-corporeal (aka. the afterlife)?

On that note, how can science ever possibly prove or disprove that anything does or does not exist beyond the physical world? Is it that the physical world is proof in itself, where if something exists, it is comprised of physical elements and laws, and vice-versa? Or is it that the physical world is proof of absolutely nothing other than the existence of the physical world?.. Where in fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe. Science and it’s laws can only be applied to our universe. We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum. That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into “absolute nothingness” and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.

2

Okay… So the soul, our conscious selves, is atomically constituted as the brain and nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that our conscious selves cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn’t anything to keep the soul together. Has science, and can science, actually disprove the existence of the soul, post-corporeal (aka. the afterlife)?

Science can confirm what philosophy/metaphysics has already disproved. The soul has a specific nature, and is causally-dependent on a functioning human brain. Remove the brain and the soul cannot exist.

Where in fact there are many theories about multiverse rather than universe.

Such theories presume a different definition of “universe” from the more standard definition, which is “all that exists”. There can’t be more than one instance of “all that exists”, for each instance would not encompass the other instances. If you would like to talk about “universe” as “our little bubble of a larger multiverse”, that is fine, but then you are just using the words to refer to different concepts. The “multiverse”, then, is “all that exists”, and “universe” is just our little visible bubble. Of course, until there is evidence of other bubbles, the claim to their existence is arbitrary and can be rejected as such.

3

Science and it’s laws can only be applied to our universe.

Correct. Remember the definition of universe is all that exists, therefore science and it’s laws apply to all that exists.

We can reasonably assume that our universe is expanding into a vacuum.

Using what type of reasoning? Deduction from arbitrary principals? Wouldn’t this 'vacuum" then be part of all that exists, i.e., the universe?

That is not by any means the same as saying our universe is expanding into “absolute nothingness” and what lies beyond our universe is outside the realm of any sort of scientific determination one way or another.

So being that the universe is defined as all that exists this would mean that the universe is “expanding” into itself–a contradiction.

4

But it is impossible to offer any “proof” that “The soul has a specific nature, and is causally-dependent on a functioning brain.” Or to disprove it.

There is no scientifically accepted definition of the soul, merely different schools of thought. That is the realm of Philosphy.

I could simply choose another constraint. For example, a man’s wife died 9 years ago. Her “atomic being” is gone. So according to these constraints her soul is gone.

However, let’s say this past Christmas the man goes to the cemetery and puts flowers on his wife’s grave. From a physical point of view, thermodynamic work was done. He could say the cause was simple: “he was moved to do this by his wife’s soul.” We could argue that this is all merely a manifestation of his brain. He could argue that in the absence of knowledge of who his wife was, this thermodynamic work would never have occurred.

So is science incapable of proving either assumptions as correct or incorrect? And therefore equally incapable of disproving the man’s assumption in favor of ours?

We could argue the definition of the Universe. But if you use the definition of the Universe as being “everything that exists”, wouldn’t you then have to also accept that by expanding the definition, you must also accept that “science and it’s laws apply to everything that exists” is no longer valid in anything other than abstract terms as well? The science in this Universe has an empirical basis. We have certain constants that are defined only within our time-energy-matter space continuum. If you expand your definition beyond that, there is no requirement that other physical bodies in the total multiverse exhibit the same physical behavior.

We could argue that “the laws of science still apply” but the framework of science has now become so abstract, that you might as well include infinite possibilities, and so why not “the soul” as well.

The problem is not that I refuse to recognize any absolutes. The speed of light, atomic masses etc., these are all quantities which are known with absolute certainty in our physical existence. The problem is that it seems we are trying to expand science to explain things that are simply outside the realm of scientific explanation, as it exists in our Universe. So we really cannot have both. In this case there appears to be a logical constraint on science. Science is the science of our physical sphere of existence - our time space matter energy continuum - that is the only science we have. And there are questions and concepts that our science simply cannot address.

We could “define” a Mozart symphony in terms of a specific set of notes in a specific arrangement. Science cannot adequately explain what motivated Mozart to create this, or what might inspire other musicians to be inspired to play it an infinite number of different ways. Inspiration, like “soul” is an abstract entity. Would anyone deny the empirical evidence that humans are capable of an abstract level of creation we try to define by this word “inspiration”? Or that this “inspiration” can perpetuate itself far beyond the grave?

Why would we view the soul any differently?

5

Well then obviously the first step is to agree on a definition. Go ahead and describe or define your concept of “soul”, keeping in mind what is necessary for a properly-formed concept.

6

There is no scientifically accepted definition of the soul, merely different schools of thought.

Science is not for defining words. There’s also no scientifically accepted definition of the word “the”. Or “word”.

That is the realm of Philosphy.

Philosophy is the realm of establishing how concepts are integrated and how terms are defined. It’s not the realm of defining every single term in existence though.

One thing philosophy can tell us, for sure, is that terms must be defined before they are used, and the concepts they denote must be correctly integrated. So, please, define your terms. What do you mean by soul, and which group of existents does the term denote?

7

The soul is simply a metaphysical concept to explain being and consciousness. It is our conscious selves, atomically formed as the brain/nervous system, thus corporeal. Like every atomic compound it slowly fades into dissolution and disperses. Given that it cannot survive death, once the body dies, there isn’t anything to keep the soul together.

That is what I basically believe. But can it be scientifically proven that the soul in this constraint cannot survive?

8

The mind, consciousness, the soul are actions of an existent – a man’s brain/body. Actions can not exist separate from existents.

9

It is our conscious selves, atomically formed as the brain/nervous system, thus corporeal. … But can it be scientifically proven that the soul in this constraint cannot survive?

Can something you defined as “corporeal” be proven to not exist without a body? Yes, but no science is necessary, only application of the complex formula: “a corporeal thing is corporeal”.