Time, death and the universe

[Thorne]

We have no idea why or how that takes place, there are theories but not all theories are fact.

If you want to be scientific about it, then there are many hypotheses about it, but none of them have accumulated enough evidence to actually qualify as a theory. Any scientific theory has been tested and tested and tested again until it has become the next best thing to fact. But scientists know that it would only take one new piece of evidence to overturn their theory, so they do not claim it to be fact.

There are many different hypotheses about how the mind works, but no really definitive theories as yet. That does not make it all right to just insert any wishful thinking you want and claim it to be just as valid as any other hypothesis. You have to have data, evidence, that what you are saying is likely. So far, I've not heard of any that supports the continuation of the mind after death.

My quote [I have to believe]. My belief is my theory, and it will remain a theory until proved fact or fiction.

Unless you can provide evidence for it, it must remain at best an unproven hypothesis, at worst a fiction.

Fact; is the accumulation of several theories of the same content being proved correct after repeated experiments.

Sorry, no. A fact is an observed phenomenon, recordable and measurable by independent sources. A fact is a data point which is used to determine the validity (or not) of an hypothesis. When an hypothesis accounts for ALL of the facts, and predicts new facts previously not known, only then does it graduate to the level of theory. One of the beauties of Newton's Theory of Gravity, for example, was that it accounted for all of the known motions of the planets, and was used to determine the existence of Neptune before it was actually observed. One of the beauties of Einstein's Theory of Relativity is that it exactly explained the one fact which, it was found, Newton's theory could NOT explain: the advance of Mercury's perihelion.

I was merely pointing out that with each birth the amount of learning and information stored in the brain is greater, and the question I asked was what is the point if we die and that thought and knowledge is wasted?

I don't understand this point. How do you mean, the stored information is greater? As near as I can find, when we are born we all have about the same information stored, and much of that is autonomic reflexes, things which are 'hard-wired' to keep us alive. Yes, there is more and more information that is available, after we are born, to fill up our brains, but we don't generally accumulate all of that information. A 17th century man, for example, would likely know how to care for a horse, how to hunt for food, how to do a myriad of things that the average man no longer does. We don't, as a rule, learn all of that information. We learn how to put gas in our cars, where to find the grocery stores, and the myriad of things we need to know to function in our world. Sure, some people will learn archaic skills, by choice. But none of that knowledge is present when we are born. And you still ask the question, "What is the point?" without showing any reason why there SHOULD be a point, other than your wishes.

That is your belief, or is that fact and proved to be true?

Let's call it an observation, based on the lack of any evidence for the universe, as an entity, having any kind of demonstrable intelligence. There's just no evidence that the death of any individual, or group, seems to have any measurable effect on the universe as a whole.