Alexander Ohnemus

At the moment, we have no definite proof of the existence of an afterlife. the closest we can get is interviewing people who have been brought back to life after being medically dead. however, such information is of limited value as obviously not all of the neurons in the brain are yet dead, and experiences can be equated to hallucinations or dreams, rather than perception of life of a deceased person. So as scientists we must remain agnostic, or even atheistic, until more evidence emerges to support either points of view. My own opinion is that there is no afterlife and definitely no heaven or hell. Once declared medically dead, then that is it for each of us.

Regarding future possibilities into research into what it is like to be dead, I believe it is not possible to conduct such research in an ethical way. There is nothing to investigate. Dead means dead.

@Valerie Saunders Hello Professor Saunders,

I respectfully disagree. Would you like to publicly debate me?

Alexander Ohnemus

sounds interesting. how, where and what? do you have access to evidence that i do not have?

@Valerie Saunders http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24739.43040

Alexander Ohnemus I have read your article. A certain amount of it is irrelevant to providing any evidence or proof of an afterlife. Your are good at using red herrings. You yourself state that there is no evidence. Introducing the discipline of engineering does not add to your opinions as engineering offers no evidence one way or another as to whether there is or is not an afterlife. But it is fun debating. 😊

@Valerie Saunders we may have to agree to disagree. I do not see red herrings in my arguments. At least an individual's consciousness being eternal is more parsimonious than Plato's Theory of Forms.

Alexander Ohnemus

The "proposal" offers to "...add the science of the afterlife and the philosophy of the afterlife". The 1st doesn't exist, and the latter is at best amorphous and subjective. Pages of wandering, repetitive verbage to a fatuous, profoundly- obvious conclusion. Really enjoyed the self-absorved "references" - all yours, none peer reviewed just crap you posted on Reseachgate in tbhe lasy few months including your BS "The Modeling Differential Equations: (P)' = ~S. Aderivative of philosophy is approximately science. (S)' = ~E. A derivative of science isapproximately engineering"(Ohnemus 2023) (PDF) Highly Theoretical Differential Equations of the Afterlife. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374913431_Highly_Theoretical_Differential_Equations_of_the_Afterlife?channel=doi&linkId=653609545d51a8012b6479c8&showFulltext=true#fullTextFileContent [accessed Oct 31 2023].

"Approximately" science? Very humorous.

Conclusion? If you;ve figured it out - why is it a proposal - what are you proposing?

Think I'll have a couple of beers this evening for alcohol simulation of the afterlife.

To what sucker group was this proposal offered?

@Phil Geis, Dear Doctor and Professor Geis,

Thank you for all your honesty. The individual's consciousness is more parsimoniously eternal than all abstract ideas are. And these differential equations, as I stated, are highly theoretical. The sooner I can get access to more technology and more review by peers, the sooner these differential equations will become less theoretical.

Kind regards,

Alexander Ohnemus

Alexander Ohnemus

Yes, those are not "equations" to anyone but you. I do not see any technology in your proposal.

@Phil Geis Respectfully Dr. And Professor Geis,

The differential equations are highly theoretical. And I have not obtained the technology yet.

@Phil Geis, Respectfully Dr. And Professor Geis,

The https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373434695_The_Modeling_Differential_Equations are rigorous yet theoretical because epistemology is needed to interpret reality. Betrand Russell and Leonardo da Vinci inspired me: "Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know"-Betrand Russell. Source: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/bertrand_russell_122798

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast"-Leonardo Da Vinci. source: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/leonardo_da_vinci_140595 .

"Science is the captain, and practice the soldiers"- Leonardo Da Vinci. Source: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/leonardo_da_vinci_542509

@Phil Geis, Respectfully again Dr. And Professor Geis,

(science)' = ~engineering because the former's theories are tested by its applicability to the latter.

Phil Geis Therefore Dr. and Professor Geis, Given my previous replies, I have successfully defended my research proposal against your criticisms.

Kind regards,

Alexander Ohnemus

Phil Geis Not all the sources in Book Highly Theoretical Differential Equations of the Afterlife

Alexander Ohnemus

It's a proposal and you're offering it as a finished product

with an absurd conclusion. Defense? What defense? Proposal? To whom?

So good of you to toss in a couple of other citations, similarly meandering.

I understand the two as different; science is something earthly that is explored by 'observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.'

Ref: https://explorable.com/definition-of-science#:~:text=Science%20is%20defined%20as%20the,theoretical%20explanation%20of%20natural%20phenomena.

Where believe that afterlife is a matter of faith.

I believe in God and that if you have faith, after your death, you will then go to Heaven and your soul will live on.

Phil Geis Dr. and Professor Geis, The proposal is highly theoretical differential equations. I am not offering a finished product. Thus, the conclusion is completely sane. My defense were my responses to your criticisms earlier in this discussion. According to research gate you follow this discussion. I am proposing to no one in particular but to whoever is willing to read my article. I am not meandering. My central claims remain parsimonious. If people that completely deny the afterlife's existence are also determinists then their claims are highly disputable. Because determinism is not parsimonious. Free will is not parsimonious. Yet, compatibilism between determinism and free will is parsimonious.

Alexander - I'll try one more time. Please pay attention - it might get fplks to read your thoughts.

This is not a proposal - you offer no proposition. This and your other self citations are extended streams of consciousness without organization that would establish any cogent points or concepts. The "conclusion" is without value - it is obvious - and a conclusion is not a proposal.. The "highly" of your highly theoretical differential equations is pompous and gratuitous (theoretical is theoretical) and I understand you're in love with the terms "parsimonious" and "determinism" but try to use them no more than once in a paragraph,.

Suggestion.

Presuming you want others to read your stuff,

1) identify specifically your proposal - the proposition that is novel and clear.

2) organize your treatise into sections whose take aways support your proposal.

3) drop the pedantic terms - parsimonious, determinism. This is Researchgate.

4) Drop the silly conclusion. Of course no one can claim with validity (validation) there is no afterlife any more than one can claim there is.

5) You might also drop the self citation. Those documents do not exist but for your posting and would be noted at best as "unpublished" but they appear to be vanity - effectively the same as your proposal.

Phil Geis Understood Dr. and Professor Geis,

My diction may be less than desirable by my fellow academics. Also, maybe I should have named the work a thesis instead of a research proposal. Yet, the central claims and conclusions still are rigorous and valuable.

Book Conflict Origins- Mutation or Eden

I suggest that you read the abstract one more time and make a few corrections.

I guess semi science subjects like psychology holds the clue since it deals with parapsychology and after life issues.Even from science point of view "Atman"is an energy ,it can never be created or destroyed.It,s form only changes,Just likeE=MCsquare of einstein.So rebirth can also be explained this way.Emperical evidences may be established in days to come.

Tosendra Dwivedi Hello Dr. and Professor Dwivedi,

I am honored to have attracted your attention. Together the low probability, low practicality, and low parsimony of Plato's Theory of Forms simultaneously point to reincarnation not happening. Yet nominalism favors a Christian Universalist Heaven being the most likely afterlife. Added with the uniqueness(see difference in birth of each sperm in a man's pair of testicles and each egg of a woman's reproductive system upon combination) of each being, causing a reincarnation to be less likely. Especially because since abstract ideas are not eternal then the force, that determines when and if a soul( also known as a quantum nomad) stops reincarnating and enters the permanent separation from the material realm, probably does not exist. I plan to publish an entire book on the low probability of reincarnation. Here are differential equations that favor a Christian Universalist Heaven as the most likely afterlife: Book Highly Theoretical Differential Equations of the Afterlife

Another reason why reincarnation seems less likely under nominalism is the idea that abstract ideas are not eternal. This means that there is no eternal essence or force that determines when and if a soul, also known as a 'quantum nomad', stops reincarnating and permanently bids farewell to the material realm. According to nominalism, this power probably does not exist. It is important to note that these views are specifically related to nominalism and that there are other philosophical and religious perspectives that have different views on the afterlife and reincarnation.

I mean no disrespect to people who believe in reincarnation. At the same time, empirical evidence demonstrates the high improbability of reincarnation compared to a Universalist Heaven.

Empirical research shows that a universal heaven is more likely than reincarnation. This is supported by the accumulated evidence, which indicates that the probability of a universal heaven is greater than of reincarnation. However, it is important to note that this is based on the interpretation of empirical evidence and that there are different views and belief systems on these topics.

Philosophy is all well-and-good, but the FUNDAMENTAL basis of the "Scientific Method" is observation and experimentation. Whether anyone chooses to "believe" something or not, it is not possible to validate spiritual realities with a physical measurement. For the integrity and utility of both science and religion it is best to observe the natural boundaries of each.

No scientific treatise can define a religious experience, and no religious text is a science textbook. So by the definition of "agnostic" (the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.), yes, science is agnostic.

To anyone who doubts my claims about the afterlife:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24739.43040

Equally valid, and probably more certain is also the following reference:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/niv/

If it's not physical or observable, it's not science.

Some claim the afterlife is experimentally proven. Others will never be convinced of an afterlife.

I agree with your statement, Steven. Science is agnostic in the sense that it does not make claims about the existence or non-existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural. Science is a method of inquiry that seeks to explain natural phenomena through empirical observation, experimentation, and the formulation of testable hypotheses. It focuses on natural explanations and seeks to understand the physical world based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Religious experiences, on the other hand, are subjective and personal in nature. They often involve a sense of connection to something beyond the physical realm and are typically based on faith, spirituality, and personal beliefs. These experiences are not amenable to scientific investigation or verification because they are not directly observable or measurable.

While science and religion address different aspects of human experience, they are not necessarily in conflict. Many people hold both scientific and religious beliefs, viewing them as complementary ways of understanding the world. Science provides explanations for the natural world, while religion offers a framework for addressing questions of meaning, purpose, and values.

Summarized:

• Science is agnostic in terms of the existence or non-existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural.
• Science relies on empirical observation, experimentation, and testable hypotheses to understand the natural world.
• Religious experiences are subjective, personal, and based on faith and personal beliefs.
• Science and religion can be seen as complementary ways of understanding different aspects of human experience.

Some used think gravity was subjective.

There is existing ongoing research on reincarnation conducted by Dr. Newman, which is again and again confirming true past life memories of kids who are speaking about them. In extreme cases, even murders were solved by taking seriously the memories of those kids. 

Another possible way to study the afterlife, which he calls 'life in between lives', is to use regressive hypnosis. This method has become a huge source of information about the issues asked in the question. 

If you want to know more, just look at Dr. Newman's Institute.

https://www.newtoninstitute.org/dr-michael-newton/

Ehm... OK..

Jiří Kroc Respectfully Dr. Kroc, what were the exact questions that the kids were asked to solve the mysteries? If all the evidence is social scientific then that support of reincarnation is not completely falsifiable. Plus belief in reincarnation is tied to memory errors(specifically the source monitoring error see Wenner, Melinda. “Belief in Reincarnation Tied to Memory Errors.” Https://Www.livescience.com/, Live Science, 6 Apr. 2007, www.livescience.com/7272-belief-reincarnation-tied-memory-errors.html. Accessed 1 Nov. 2023.)