If I understand it correctly (I may not) nothing is destroyed. Matter can be turned into energy and energy can be turned into matter. Form, however, as you noted with ice, is mutable.

When your body becomes too disorganized to function (as a result of disease, age, or injury) you die. The inordinately complex arrangement of matter and energy which composes your brain collapses. "You" cease to exist. The body which was once identified as "you" is gradually transformed into water, carbon dioxide, minerals, and so on, and is recycled back into the planet from which your material being was put together.

As far as I can tell, our existential being comes to a final end when we die. Some people think the cosmos makes arrangements for our existential being to continue on in some form -- as an angel, a damned spirit, as another animal (reincarnation), as a ghost, and so forth. Take your pick.

Some people find some satisfaction in knowing that they continue to exist as an infinitesimally tiny portion of the sum total of all matter and energy. Some people publish books, make works of art, design and build structures, etc. which they consider their "ongoing legacy". "They exist in their work". And living things reproduce, contributing something of their existence to future life. This sort of after-life doesn't usually last very long, either. Most of our 'works' are plowed under or forgotten pretty quickly. The folks who invented plastics and plutonium will see their progeny last for geological ages.

"Sic transit gloria mundi" describes our transient situation: "Thus passes the glory of the world."

This is actually one of the reasons why I'm partial to the idea of reincarnation. Basically everything in the world that we know about follows the laws of conservation. Nothing can be created, nor can it be destroyed in other words. There are just things that change their state as they interact with one another. Therefore, given that "we" also exist as a part of this world (a little self reflection would help to demonstrate that much), shouldn't we be "conserved" as well? Of course, what "we" are is debatable (it may be that "we" aren't matter and energy at all), but whatever "we" are should follow the same laws as everything else right? At least it seems that the onus is on those who suggest otherwise. Reincarnation sounds like a natural way of making sense of all of this.

One possible objection to all of this would be to say that what "we" are refers to an arrangement of matter rather than the matter itself (as @Bitter Crank suggests). Unlike the elementary particles, we have no trouble talking about things like "chairs" being created and destroyed, so it may just be that who "we" are is more like the latter than the former, the objection goes. Putting aside any thoughts about whether an arbitrary arrangement of matter is who "we" really are, I don't think this means that reincarnation is impossible even if true. I mean, even if what comprises "us" is the specific set of particles that makes up our bodies right now, and even if that structure will cease to be in the future, there is nothing saying that that arrangement won't repeat itself. Regardless of whether one considers such an event likely or unlikely it is a possibility. In a sense, then given that such a structure refers to "you" then technically that could also be considered a form of reincarnation as well.

Well, the universe seems to recycle stuff, for sure -- and if you want to extend that to the recycling of being, go right ahead. Though there is nothing more convincing about reincarnation than the idea of nothing following death, or the idea that we are transported to heaven. Everything in the category of "do we exist after death?", "does God exist?", "what happened before the Big Bang? or even "will I be alive and well 1 year from now?" are all unknowable. That which we have no knowledge of we should just shut up about. There are plenty of other things that are knowable and about which we can do something.

EDIT: I don't mean the above to be a terminating response. If I find reincarnation depressing, that need not stop you from being enthusiastic about it. Being reincarnated as a slime mold was just not a good thing, back 5862 tears ago, and I still resent it.

Take ice for example, when ice melts, it isnt destoryed, it instead transforms into liquid form, another phase of the cycle. — Johnpveiga

It isn't ice that is undergoing these phase changes, but water. Ice, water and clouds are all made up of the same thing, H2O. When the ice melts, the ice is destroyed but the water, the H2O, remains.

Actually this is a super interesting idea when applied to the world and everything in it. Can we see everything that exists as modes of some fundamental substance just as we see the water and its phases?

This is exactly what modern physics tells us: energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and everything is said to be "made up of" energy.

Is my current state as a solid physical human being simply a phase of a cycle and when i die, i did not get "destroyed" or cease to exist instead i pass to another phase of the cycle, just like ice that melts transforms into liquid form? — Johnpveiga

You, as a particular individual, ceases to exist when you die but the matter and energy that constitute you remain.

The question, I think, is not what happens to the matter or energy but what happens to its form. Where does the form "ice" go when water melts? What is the being of essence?

As I see it, the answer to this question is intimately related to mind. Thought is what holds form.

That which we have no knowledge of we should just shut up about. There are plenty of other things that are knowable and about which we can do something. — Bitter Crank

Well, I think there's very little that we can know for certain. Apart from our own direct experience and existence that doesn't leave much for discussion.

If I find reincarnation depressing, that need not stop you from being enthusiastic about it. Being reincarnated as a slime mold was just not a good thing, back 5862 tears ago, and I still resent it. — Bitter Crank

I can't say that I'm really that enthusiastic about reincarnation either. My opinions on the value of non-existence are actually sort of mixed (on the one hand I find the idea of an afterlife to be comforting like alot of people, but at the same time I also find non-existence to be liberating in a sense) so I can't really say what I think about death from a personal level. Not comfortable with my neutral stance, but I like to think that it makes me more objective when thinking about topics such as life after death.

Apart from our own direct experience and existence that doesn't leave much for discussion. — Mr Bee

Whadahyahmean, it doesn't leave much room for discussion? Our own direct experiences and existence are all we've ever had. Out of that comes the direct experience of thinking about our direct experiences and existence, science, arts, literature, government, The Philosophy Forum, etc. What else would there be? Concerts and lectures from heaven?

so I can't really say what I think about death from a personal level — Mr Bee

Oh... I'm pretty sure you'll think of something once the Grim Reaper appears. As they say, there are no neutrals about death in front of the firing squad or in hospice. You'll either be for it or against it--probably against, with the firing squad, all for it if you are dying in hospice.

there are two realities , the unmanifested which does not exist in a time/space construct ....and then we have the physical world which rises and falls , it is born and dies ..... but what dies ?

if a tall mountain gets eroded by the wind for a million years to a hill ..... has the mountain died ? Because the dirt that the wind picked up is now part of the ground ..... so what was destroyed ??

your label of the mountain , .... the mountain can only be destroyed when you change it's label .... so is the mountain the entire gigantic pile of dirt and rock ??? .... ok ... if that is the case , what if we only do 50 years of erosion and only say 10,000lbs of dirt has flown off the mountain ... well thats hardly noticeable so I guess the mountain didnt get destroyed .....

so now if that is the case ..... at want point does destruction of the mountain take place ?? 51% of its volume gone ?? the issue is that you assign a value to a specific form that at THIS SPECIFIC moment in time looks like what we call a mountain ..... but a million years from now the molecules that made the mountain are still going to be intact ...they are simply going to be scattered in a flatter formation ......


this is the physical world ....everything that is , will always be .... just not in the same form .



the unmanifested , the space that allows the manifested to rise and fall does not operate under the time and space construct of our minds ....which is why you will never be able to rationalize the concept of god ..... the mind is too limited

the mountain can only be destroyed when you change it's its label — rodrigo

Hmmmm, not so fast. I can label you "dead", but my act of labeling you dead has no consequence for you. You can relabel Denali and call it a hill, but it will remain a mountain. Denali will cease to be a mountain when it isn't a mountain any more. There were once mountains where there are now none--those mountains were destroyed.

at what point does destruction of the mountain take place — rodrigo

Construction and destruction are both processes, not events. The Himalayan Mountains are being both constructed and destructed at the same time. Plate tectonics is shoving India into Asia, causing the up-lift producing what we call the Himalayas. At the same time glaciers, wind, rain, the freeze/thaw cycle, gravity, and so forth are all grinding the mountains down. The Himalayan Mountains will have been destroyed when destruction exceeds construction for a long time and they are not there any more, some many millions of years from now.

the unmanifested , the space that allows the manifested to rise and fall does not operate under the time and space construct of our minds ....which is why you will never be able to rationalize the concept of god ..... the mind is too limited — rodrigo

What the hell does that mean?

If the mind is so limited, how do you know what does and does not operate under "the time and space construct of our minds"? Can the mind know what it can not know?

Please Note: You are not under attack, rodrigo. Relax. I'm just suggesting that you have may inadvertently written something nonsensical. Philosophizing often produces nonsensical statements. Welcome to the club. Literally, welcome to The Philosophy Forum, a place where many nonsensical statements are made, discovered, and outed--much to the annoyance, pain, and agony of the authors.

why would i feel under attack ? you are entitled to your opinions , for me to have my beliefs doesn't come into conflict with someone who simply has their limited perspective .... a mountain is what YOU have created and labeled , so it's death is your interpretation of its existence ..... you make a distinction between a mountain , a hil and a flat surface all containing the exact elements ...no one on earth but humans make that distinction ....so the mountains death has nothing to do with it disappearing ... it only has to do with your interpretation of those elements positioned in a specific order to create what YOU and ONLY YOU call a mountain (YOU i amusing as humans)


so what you call destruction is simply your mind not accepting that there is no destruction , there is only forms ever changing ..... I am perfectly fine disagreeing , even you correcting my spelling , if it makes you feel better pointing out I am wrong I won't take it personally ... I don't make comments to be right , I share what I have experienced and you may want to keep an open mind that academics only get you so far in life ....and at some point you may or may not realize that your mind is a tool , clever indeed ....but limited ..... if that offends you because I am diminishing your mental prowess that is not really my intention , I am simply sharing with you that the mind is a limited tool .... and it cannot go beyond the confines of time and space .... if you would like me to elaborate I will give it a try .....

the concept of infinity or eternity ....can it be grasped by the mind ? sure you will give me what the dictionary says ...great !!! .... now please explain to me infinity or eternity with rational terms please and let's see where this goes if you don't mind ....

In the example, it's not the ice that continues to another cycle, it's the substance it's made of, water. Ice is a form of water that can cease to be. Things, which are really differentiated by their form not their substance, can be destroyed. .

Also, the particular matter constituting a form doesn't necessary recycle in a predictable, circular/cyclical way. For one, objects are always loosing old and gaining new material all the time, not just after they cease to be. And once their form ceases, the remaining material is scattered, it can go on to be a part of any number of other forms. There's no guarantee the same material will make the same type of form.

Does anything ever get destroyed in the world? — Johnpveiga

This is a great question, thanks. Here's yet another way to look at it...

You ask, "does any THING ever get destroyed?" The question presumes the existence of things, separate entities which are divided from all else.

It can be argued that things don't actually exist, but are instead an illusion created by thought, which operates by a process of dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts.

As example, when does the glass of water you're drinking become you? We can reasonably draw the dividing line between the water and you at a number of different places, which shows that the dividing line is arbitrary, a human invention.

Can the single unified reality be created or destroyed? If we define that as the observable universe, probably so, as the big bang would seem to illustrate. Is there a large context in which the observable universe exists? No one has a clue.

You're basically re-discovering the philosophical idea of "substance."

It can be argued that things don't actually exist, but are instead an illusion created by thought, — Jake

Yeah, but actually, don't. I live in a house, not an illusion, and if your house has ever been knocked down, you will understand that destruction is not an illusion either, because a pile of rubble is not a house.

Destruction, is the removal of structure, not the removal of substance, which is called 'clearing up after yourself'.

I'd say a Label can Cease to Exist in terms of a mountain or ice, but that is just the construct and the image we use in our heads to communicate in this world. The mountain is really just the earth which is really just the universe. Like a pimple on a face can disappear a mountain is to the earth. Like a sand castle can become sand, ice can become a puddle. When these things do fit a label though there are interesting things we can do with them. We can throw ice and cause a *Ding on a sign, it's hard to do that in it's liquid form. Therefore I guess one could dare to say the only thing destroyed is the options in the moment. Bulldoze a mountain, you can't climb it(traditional sense of climb, I could easily pretend to climb a flat area) but you can now do different things ☺. So function can become not able to function

Does anything ever get destroyed in the world?

It depends on how you define "thing" in "anything". If your iphone is dropped from a tall building, it's constituent parts will still exist, but they will no longer be the constituent parts of a functional iphone.

Transformation is the only truth. ''Destruction'' is emotionally loaded and has no place in philosophy unless you want to try a bit of rhetoric.