It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You’d have to tell me what you thought a soul was first. Since you won’t explain, I can’t oblige you.
It is the part that conciously lives on when the body dies.
Everything is made of something even anti matter
In my opinion, space, including the space within the majority of the atom, is filled with something that is quite powerful, but it isn't matter.
Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.
originally posted by: jedi_hamster
it's a pity that changing the science requires buying his book.
interesting points to start your own research though.
originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: Astyanax
No. But I'm open to being convinced.
So your answer to if you believe in the soul is No
So why should I attempt to convince you of something you do not believe in
Do you prefer not to use the word "space" in relation to the life force? Or, do you prefer not to use the term "life force"?