It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientists find hints of the soul at the quantum level.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 09:55 PM
this article is interesting...

need to research more
edit on 22016TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago118 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:04 AM

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: namelesss

I disagree, sir...
. The Razor perfectly fits the debate. It allows a definitive and easy position to be taken with the caveat of potentially being proven wrong at a later date...

What I mean, is that there is a vastly simpler 'consistent' theory, that doesn't need the... 'complexities' of the paradox-filled theories of 'causation/creation' of 'matter'.
The simplest, consistent, non-refuted, predictive explanation, whispers Occam...

If one 'knows' one loves someone, what need is there of proof?

I 'knew' what Love was as a teenager, or so I imagined.
There are many different attempts (definitions) by the 'conditional' ego to imitate unconditional Love!
The only way to tell, especially by those ignorant/inexperienced, is by the 'symptoms'.
The conditional ego cannot imitate unconditional Love;

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:49 AM

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

I dunno. I disagree. There have been plenty of scientists over the years that have tried to prove the existence of the soul. I see nothing wrong with wanting to believe it is true. If these scientists think it is so, then they just need to prove it. If Quantum Mechanics is the ticket to do so, then great. Looks like they are in the right field. But unless there is something to report it isn't exactly groundbreaking territory here.

But you aimlessly swear allegiance to those trying to prove the existence of The Big Bang.

They just need to prove it, like you say, and yet not a shred of it has been reported or ever will.

If the Big Bang theory is a fake, then post your version of what actually happened!

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 08:00 PM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Somewhere down the road, that was modified in the debate crowd to a 'cycle of the universe' rather than the beginning of it. A clever, and perhaps, wise back-pedal.)

Actually I believe cyclic models preceded TBBT. Also, the general consensus is still on a non-cyclic theory. Personally I am betting on a self-sustaining Universe.

The 'then where did God come from' argument becomes completely ignored when it come to the big bang crowd. Where did the condensed material come from

Sure. Ultimately it comes down to something coming from nothing, or an eternal component to existence. Is it 'God' or a self-sustaining Universe? We don't know yet. Religion pretends to, science does not.

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 03:06 AM

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Perhaps there is merge point between the spiritual and scientific world.

Again, many scientists in complete awe of the symmetry of it all, intuitively have come to the awareness of 'soul'. This is not a broadly announced potential being, so far, only on Huff's site and Facebook, for obvious reasons, yet it may be the start to further deliberate investigation despite no real financial potential by the technocrat crowd.

One can only hope...

"One can only hope..."

Uh...why hope?

This is nothing new. If history tells us one thing, it's that those who represent the pinnacle of intellectual achievement and potential are just as susceptible to folly as the rest of us. If it tells us another, it's that these same people are often those who go on to lay the foundation for a new understanding of the natural word.

After all, it was in the halls of the monasteries and churches of millenia past that the practice of studying natural law, and science was born into. But there's a reason that not a single scientist is given credit for solving the questions of the supernatural: theologians are often philosophers, but philosophers are rarely scientists.

And the difference between the philosopher and the scientist is as great as it gets.

"Perhaps there is a merge point between the spiritual world and scientific world"

And perhaps dogs rule the universe, and the poo they leave in my yard isn't poo...perhaps, rather, they're just seeding the universe with little nuggets of wisdom.

The reason there is no General Theory of Relativity for the supernatural isnt for lack of effort. People have been trying to answer the question of our existence and experience longer than they've been asking about the nature of the matter that makes it up. They haven't been successful because the premise that a supernatural exists is just that--a premise. And by definition, the supernatural is something that cannot be defined, because it can't be observed via the methods we normally use to describe and define objects.

So if I told you to categorize, define, and describe everything that exists outside of the world in which you live-- if I told you to describe everything that isn't something-- and you did so, you'd have described nothing.

Does this mean that the phenomena that we attribute to the supernatural isn't something incredible and mystical and awe-inspiring? In fact, I'd argue the opposite. But as we knock down barrier after barrier to understanding the world around us, we're quickly finding that history is telling us one last thing....and that is: once we understand it, it's no longer supernatural. Fire, the moon, the sun, the stars, the atom, the quark, and the field. God, Adam, heredity, DNA, evolution. The supernatural just isn't necessary. And all attempts to find a common thread under the banner of the supernatural lead back to one subject...and conveniently that subject is, by definition, undefined and undefineable. And it has to stay that way. Because if there were some method if describing it, not only would it not be supernatural because of the definition of the word, but it also inherently mean that you had understood absolutely nothing.

Oh jeeze...I've talked myself into a circle. Time to jump out of the rabbit hole.

ESP, Telepathy, etc....they're fun subjects to discuss and imagine, and it's fun to think that we're at the tip of the spear when it comes to human existence; or that we're on some intellectual frontier that will fundamentally transform us and the entire human experience. Perhaps certain components of the nutty stuff discussed here will be the cornerstone of whatever subject will, in the future hold the title of "wacky knowledge from the future" in the same way that quantum mechanics does currently. But lumping it all together and calling it the soul, spirits, or ascribing it to vibrational planes, or whatever those that claim access to special information seem to always claim, if it isn't absolutely clear by now, is fundamentally a self-evidently flawed practice...and that should be obvious if you just apply to it the same logic that you would apply to any other object in the human experience.

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 03:58 AM

say, if science can "see" or "measure" base of equipment we develops and there is a existence of a energy (soul). Then i would ask myself, if we can detect "souls" through technological means, also gives idea that can also be able to extract, manipulate or in worst case terminate the souls.

we all have been teached that souls are indestructible. What happens if its not, then we can face a "true death"

Still its a nice thing to know if we have souls or not. Then other question pops in. "if souls as in energy are in a sense a intelligent energy parasite who need a host as in our body to function in 3rd dimension"

just speculating here

- V -

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:43 PM
a reply to: MonkeyCarrier

Kind of ironic. Your post is pure philosophic in nature..

Methinks he doth protest too much...

posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 02:21 AM

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MonkeyCarrier

Kind of ironic. Your post is pure philosophic in nature..

Methinks he doth protest too much...

That was my point. Although scientists are absolute in their opinions on philosophers, and their uselessness, in this case, the application of some logic and semantics tells you everything you need to know. In this case, which may be the first and last time that philosophy provides us with something useful (joke)-- a proof of the fundamental flaw in putting stock in these types of reports and pronouncements -- and actually makes something clear.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in