Why are scientific explanations for NDEs so woefully inadequate?
471661
Here's what All About has to say in regards to this subject.\n\n___________\n\nWhat have we learned from life after death experiences? \n\nWe have all heard stories of people who have seemed to be dead - without vital signs for several minutes - only to be revived. Many of these people tell of traveling at high speeds through tunnels or of seeing brilliant white lights or even of coming face to face with God. \n\nThese life after death experiences raise many questions that directly reflect on Christianity - questions like, "What happens when we die?" and "Is it possible to communicate with the dead?" \n\nEven Christian believers disagree on what the Bible says on these matters. Some say those who die fall into a kind of dreamless sleep until Judgment Day. Others say the souls of the dead are immediately subjected either to Heaven or Hell, depending on whether they believe in Jesus. Still others say our souls remain conscious, but exist in a kind of limbo until the Day of Judgment arrives. \n\nLife after death experiences presuppose the soul remains conscious and aware after death. Those who have these experiences often report they retain the ability to see, to hear, to think, to feel - but they are unable to communicate with anyone. While the experience may be confusing, people report they are suffused with joy - partly as the result of being removed from the suffering of the body. \n\nIt is interesting that many life after death experiences are accompanied by a distinct sense of being two people - one physical and one spiritual. And the spiritual being is completely indifferent to the suffering self. \n\nPerhaps this is one reason the Apostle Paul tells us to die to ourselves, putting God ahead of our selfish desires: \n\n"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). \n\nResearchers report that about one in seven of those who are revived in such circumstances report seeing a brilliant light or even beings they interpret as angels, Jesus, or God. Some people report a sense of having their lives "reviewed." \n\nThe effect of the review is often beneficial and may lead some to accept God, others to rededicate themselves to what they perceive as God's purpose for them. \n\nSome Christians have claimed that after-death experiences are beyond the purview of God and are therefore demonic in nature. But it seems unlikely that being subjected to demonic influences would lead so many people to a closer walk with God. \n\nIn Luke 9:50, Jesus is asked by His followers what to do about a man who is casting out demons even though he is not a disciple. Jesus replies, "Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you." \n\nIn fact, for God to be truly omnipotent, He must be in control of these sojourns into death. Perhaps He uses them to direct His people. \n\n\nLife After Death: Why is it Such a Hot Topic?\nLife after death -- Why all the interest? Combine events like September 11th with the demographic phenomenon of the Baby Boom generation reaching its 50’s, and suddenly the reality of death from catastrophe and death from mere old age are upon us in a personal way. \n\nSo, it appears that more and more people are asking the same question that Job asked nearly 4,000 years ago in the Bible: "If a man dies, will he live again?" What could be a more fundamental question of life (and death)? Reincarnation theories are popular in Eastern religions as well as the many New Age variants. It seems people are comfortable with the idea of another chance to return to earth and figure things out or make things right. Some nihilist thinkers believe that death is the absolute end; but contrary to what many might think, most people believe that death is not the end. In some shape or form we go on. \n\nWhen Jesus was talking
364140
Studies have been conducted rationally, objectively\nand scientifically on the so called Bermuda triangle\nphenomenon. When you consider the intensity of storms, the frequency of storms, the incidence of various natural and turbulent ocean currents and the high amount of air and marine traffic, it's quite normal that there should be a high rate of accidents and disappearance in that area.\nBut so long as there are hungry readers for super natural\nstories there will be journalists and authors eager to make a buck. These writers are the same kind who sensationalize\nand fabricate stories of alien abduction, bigfoot, Lock\nNess Monster and alien creation of crop circles. The real\nphenomenon here is a sociological one. And that is, the need\nthat people have to believe in the unbelievable and how\nit thrives on ignorance.
828845
ridge push hypothesis sounds more appeling, besides that i don't know
458368
Most things about the universe are poorly understood, including homeopathy.  For 'true doubters' I suggest you read a book by William Tiller, Ph.D., et al called: "Conscious Acts of Creation - The Emergence of a New Physics".  This book is about the latest physics research at leading universities such as Princeton and Stanford.\n\nA few quotes from the forward in the book (by leading researchers at NIH, Penn State, and the Univ. of Texas):\n\n"Decades of rigorous experiments at Princeton University and elsewhere have demonstrated small effects from intention on random systems."\n\n"The chapter on water is worth the price of the book, and it's connection to a likely theoretical framework for explaining homeopathic effects may well become it best-known results."\n\n"The authors of this book have not only carried out careful experiments, but ... have obtained reproducible results which are somewhat disconcerting to mainstream physics."  \n\nIt might be a good idea to do a little 'research' before you form baseless opinions.\n\nBest wishes.
165740
There has been a bit of research done on this, but much of it lies within the realm of philosophy rather than pure science.\n\nWhat you are describing are qualia, essential experiential perceptions of stilumli, rtaher than the stimulus itself. They are very difficult to study scientifically because they are inherently subjective and science can only deal with the objective.\n\nDo a Google search on qualia and you will get more information on this subject than you can handle.
571077
Sometimes they are useful to have a physical understanding of process, even if it is not entirely accurate.  Quantum chemistry is all approximations, however the predictions are sometimes very accurate and this can give us an idea of which molecular orbitals interact...and so on.\n\nSometimes reality is just to complex to have completely accurate models.
52582
Because our view of reality is inaccurate, and only when we formulate experiments in certain ways do we reveal this. In some cases, the mathematics we have is inadequate to describe reality. That is, to do the "calculations" we have to do things that are "illegal" mathematically, but nevertheless end up with answers that can be accurately verified experimentally.
93296
I want it to be, along with other phenomenon, so I'd be happy to see real proof.  I've seen proof of some kinds of ESP that was undeniably "Something", so why not.
655367
I dont think there is any scientific reason for that. It is just a myth. Lot of people spread this hype. It is BS.
706023
All it means is that we don't know everything. We've learned quite a bit in the short time since we developed written language and the scientific method, and the rate of learning is accelerating. We'll learn more in the next 10 years than we've learned in the last 100. We'll probably understand the nature of dark matter in the next 10-20 years, and I would bet long odds that it won't require any supernatural explanation.
243096
theace0804:  (i) the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system will tend to a maximum; (ii) what has non-linear dynamics got to do with anything here?\n\ncurious_chemical: the 2nd law implies that the disorder of a closed system tends to a maximum, not the other way round.  You need to start understanding about closed thermodynamical systems or none of it's going to make any sense.  Ice may be more ordered than water, but during crystallisation heat was radiated into the environment and this becomes more disordered.\n\nNot relevant to the discussion here, but a fantastic mind-mangling thought experiment nonetheless, is Maxwell's Demon.  Feynman gives a nice account of it in his Lectures on Physics (IIRC).\n\nEdit:\nWe do live in a very real closed system, called the universe.  But on a more practical / local level, your thermodynamic arguments regarding order need to be referenced against an approximation of a closed system.  Your arguments regarding ice cubes forming are just bung.  You're making the same mistake as thousands of perpetual motion machine designers, and as a result your arguments are invalid.\n\nAnother Edit: So let me get this straight.  At the big bang, an infinitely large space-time was instantly created for the rest of perpetuity, and this space-time is fixed and absolute?  That's abit 19th Century don't you think?  Also,  if the edge of the universe is expanding outwards at the speed of light, then there exists a causation boundary as the interior cannot causally affect the exterior.  So ... the universe is a closed thermodynamic system.\n\nYour grasp of cosmology is pitiful but your grasp of thermodynamics is even worse.  What you say is in direct conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws, two fairly simple laws.\n\nI don' care if it isn't your "idea to make thermodynamics an issue in evolution".  You made a horribly incorrect remark about thermodynamics.  If your physics is so way off, why should your biology be any better?\n\nYou want to argue biology?  Okay, let's start with "Evolution has always been a case-by-case event".  Wrong.  Evolution is about trends not events.  Our "Our ape ancestors" is wrong; apes and humans have a common ancestor, but we most certainly don't have an "ape ancestor".  How about "Evolution [...] guarantees [...] adaptation."?  Adaptation is never guaranteed, as witnessed by the continual extinction of species.  One could probably argue that becoming more adaptable is an "arrow of progress" for the species concnered.  I know you are trying to argue against popular misconceptions of darwinian thought here, but you're doing it really badly.\n\nAlthough it is assumed by most that the same mechanisms are responsible for both macro- and micro-evolution (gene mixing and mutation), the way they are studied scientifically differ.  As a result, it is specious at best and unscientific at worst to claim that "micro is macro" in such a loud voice.  You also fail to show how the same mechanism does result in two very different phenomenom, that genes between species usually diverge and genes within species usually combine, making it very easy for creationists to pick holes in your arguments.\n\nIn short, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about and are thereby doing scientists a large disservice.
561237
What you're asking is a very complex problem...there isn't enough space here to provide you with the long drawn out list of possible explanations, and or answers to this issue...
4008
the formulas are what convince me.  I've had to derive so many complicate formulas myself, and most of them, especially mechanics formulas can be proven, such as measuring a quantities, solving for a missing variable, then doing an experiment and getting the same answer.  This is too much to be a coincedence or something.  Most theories and things are developed before formulas and actual mathamatical relationships are found, then they find them and it all fits together nicely.  Even with reletivity and things with spacetime, there are a lot of concrete formulas, and once you have the satisfaction of deriving them yourself from previously proven formulas... it all clicks nicely, that's why im a physics major, curiosity about everything like this.  I guess human perception can be valid once connections start being made between things, because when ideas are incorrect, they really don't connect to other things very easily.
47937
"god does not play dice" has been attributed to eintein but he was in fact misquoted on that issue. quantum mechanics and relativity being unified is the most important thing physics has been looking for since the discovery of quantum mechanics.It is unnerving that one set of laws applies to all matter but at a microscopic level a completely diderent set of "rules" apply
506501
Because there is no scientific data to back the theory.
518447
I guess for Intellgent Design, one of the wonderful things about not actually being science is that you aren't bounded by the same rules, obligations and constructs.\n\nAs a result, they can shift and move anyway the (political) wind blows.  Good for them, bad for rational thought and society.
1069244
Sounds kind of vague and wrong.  Gaps don't prove anything.  Gaps are the unknown.  We can make educated guesses about what happens in them, though.  The laws of physics create logical progression through a series of systematic methodical stages.  That is happening everywhere, all the time.  God doesn't have anything to do with it, unless he wrote the laws of physics, and then left.