Quantum Mechanics shows there's life after death

reply to post by sirnex


Your just stating opinion.

I'm quoting you actual evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence of anything.

Show me the evidence that science has shown that matter has an objective existence.

You don't cite any sources just your opinions.

Do you have a clue about black hole thermodynamics?

Let me quote this again.

Black hole entropy is the entropy carried by a black hole.

If black holes carried no entropy, it would be possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics by throwing mass into the black hole. The only way to satisfy the second law is to admit that the black holes have entropy whose increase more than compensates for the decrease of the entropy carried by the object that was swallowed.

Starting from theorems proved by Stephen Hawking, Jacob Bekenstein conjectured that the black hole entropy was proportional to the area of its event horizon divided by the Planck area. Later, Stephen Hawking showed that black holes emit thermal Hawking radiation corresponding to a certain temperature (Hawking temperature). Using the thermodynamic relationship between energy, temperature and entropy, Hawking was able to confirm Bekenstein's conjecture and fix the constant of proportionality at 1/4

The black hole entropy is proportional to its area A. The fact that the black hole entropy is also the maximal entropy that can be squeezed within a fixed volume was the main observation that led to the holographic principle. The subscript BH either stands for "black hole" or "Bekenstein-Hawking".

Although Hawking's calculations gave further thermodynamic evidence for black hole entropy, until 1995 no one was able to make a controlled calculation of black hole entropy based on statistical mechanics, which associates entropy with a large number of microstates. In fact, so called "no hair" theorems appeared to suggest that black holes could have only a single microstate. The situation changed in 1995 when Andrew Strominger and Cumrun Vafa calculated the right Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a supersymmetric black hole in string theory, using methods based on D-branes. Their calculation was followed by many similar computations of entropy of large classes of other extremal and near-extremal black holes, and the result always agreed with the Bekenstein-Hawking formula.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, this is not conjecture and you need more than just your opinion.

Explain Shor's algorithm and quantum computing. Where's the computation taking place?

The weakness of gravity.

What occured before the big bang?

The quantum eraser delayed choice experiment?

The holographic principle and noise found at Fermi Lab.

Quantum entanglement and non locality. Again, this is not conjecture. You just spout off your opinion which is meaningless.

There's zero evidence that matter has an objective existence.

Again, it's very simple to understand. Qubits become entangled and then are expressed as bits in a classical universe because of decoherence.

Decoherence gives you the illusion of being seperated from the whole.

I want you to cite sources that say the way that I've explained decoherence, entanglement and non locality is wrong.

I don't want your opinion. Cite sources.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by sirnex


I never mentioned it to be as fact but as explaining consciousness in terms of physics this is the only one of merit. Most other models of consciousness fail at some point because classical physics alone cannot lead to consciousness. And since quantum is the underlying framework for classical physics it it not too much of a leap to think consciousness is also at the quantum level.

reply to post by sirnex

Nor have you shown the contrary to be any more true. Yet at the same time you would love to use science to prove your case. Your a blatant hypocrite. Ridiculousness abounds on ATS.

he does not need to show it.

Energy / matter

One of the same thing, i suggest you look in the mirror BECAUSE you consist of BOTH.

You are indeed the worst troll i have ever met.

It seems he was a quantum decoherent troll.

I've really enjoyed this thread and am going to star and flag it because it lead me to researching everything about quantum consciouness. I learned tons of stuff and am proud of myself that I halfway understood it! lol

Keep up the good work and don't listen to trolls.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I'm quoting you actual evidence.

As I mentioned to someone else, I never made it past page one, so if you've cited any sources that substantiate the claims made in your initial post, then I never saw them.

What you are doing now is citing speculated sciences, what science says today might not be what science says tomorrow, so to blatantly utilize science as it exists today to push an opinion of your own while chastising other aspects of science that disprove what your saying as they exist today is nothing short of infantile hypocritical garbage. And no, I won't accept such drivel as truth, sue me.

Show me the evidence that science has shown that matter has an objective existence.

Straw man, this was never a stated opinion of mine. I did mention that * I AM OPEN* to these possibilities, but that they need to be proven before acceptance. They are *not* proven nor are you gross misunderstandings valid facts of those sciences in what they state. As I mentioned, there are websites out there that will demystify QM for you, google it.

You don't cite any sources just your opinions.

As I haven't made any claims in the contrary to your claims that counter argue them, there is no need for me to cite sources. What the hell is this... State school day where everyone has to act flipping mentally retarded? No offense to those who have members of their family that actually suffer from this condition.

Do you have a clue about black hole thermodynamics?

Wow.. And I suppose your a top notch black hole physicist yourself and have actually physically flown through the vastness of space to conduct experiments upon an actually black hole. Get off the soap box and take that damn pirate hat off, you look silly right now.

Again, this is not conjecture and you need more than just your opinion.

Explain Shor's algorithm and quantum computing. Where's the computation taking place?

The weakness of gravity.

What occured before the big bang?

The quantum eraser delayed choice experiment?

The holographic principle and noise found at Fermi Lab.

Quantum entanglement and non locality. Again, this is not conjecture. You just spout off your opinion which is meaningless.

All currently speculation and as equally valid as the Earth being flat just a mere few hundred years ago, with very exquisite and damning evidence that this was true! None of that speculation has actually been verified as of yet, they are theories, not fact and there are competing theories and or interpretations to existing theories. Choosing one interpretation as more valid than all others in regards to QM doesn't make you correct and intelligent, it just makes you a hypocrite who hasn't a clue what he's on about.

There's zero evidence that matter has an objective existence.

And equally, there is zero evidence that reality is entirely subjective to human consciousness. There is this thing called a philosophical zombie, we could all be just that while the true observer/creator is an insect. Your point is?

Again, it's very simple to understand. Qubits become entangled and then are expressed as bits in a classical universe because of decoherence.

As far as I know and have read, no naturally occurring entangled state has been found and thus far all entangled states have had to be purposefully induced.

Decoherence gives you the illusion of being seperated from the whole.

That is but one of a variety of interpretations. It is no more valid than the other interpretations.

I want you to cite sources that say the way that I've explained decoherence, entanglement and non locality.

I don't want your opinion. Cite sources.

You can play shifting burden of proof games all you want, those of us who understand what's going on know this is just a BS cop out tactic played by yourself in attempt to not prove your own claims. Nice try, sit on it a little longer though.

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by sirnex

 

I never mentioned it to be as fact but as explaining consciousness in terms of physics this is the only one of merit. Most other models of consciousness fail at some point because classical physics alone cannot lead to consciousness. And since quantum is the underlying framework for classical physics it it not too much of a leap to think consciousness is also at the quantum level.

How can you simply state that classical physics cannot lead to consciousness? We've just begun researching consciousness itself and hardly even understand it let alone enough to make such claims. Do you claim future knowledge of the science behind consciousness?

Look, I am not against the idea itself, I'm against the immature usage of language to describe the idea. I don't mean this to be an insult or an attack against your capacity for intelligent thought, but I see no other way to honestly word it. Do I lie and say spot on, good job, or do I be honest and state that it's too premature to make such ridiculously bold statements given the state of current knowledge and lack of understanding that we have on the subject?

Which would you rather, I lie to you or be honest with you? Personally, I choose honesty, unlike the majority of our disgraceful narcissistic arrogant species. Damn I'm way to ahead of my time....

I can point to websites that show their sources heres one for u to muse and the link takes you the introduction part

www.quantum-mind.co.uk...
and I post more when i find the scientific papers regarding the quantum processes

reply to post by sirnex


I figured this is what you would do.

Just your opinion.

Everything that I have talked about is not speculation and there's evidence to support it.

I have cited links but it's obvious you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

So I'm going to let you rable on until you bring some evidence to the table. This has nothing to do with being open to all possibilities. These things have evidence and I have cited evidence to support everything I have said.

You have yet to show me where science has shown that matter has an objective existence. I have provided evidence that shows matter doesn't have an objective existence.

Again, I have explained decoherence, non locality and entanglement. Nothing I have said doesn't line up with experiments when it comes to these issues.

It's obvious that your trying to debate something that you know nothing about. Maybe you should study these things and then you can debate them in an intelligent way.

I don't mind debate but you are not saying anything. It's just your opinion. You know there's tons of evidence, experiments and peer reviewed papers out there. If you take the time to read these things maybe you can debate them. You say you are open to all possibilities because you don't understand the issues.

Tell me, what possibilities are you open to? (be specific and cite sources)

What other interpretations are you debating? (be specific and cite sources).

Like I said, I'm open to a good debate but you are just trolling.

The OP's thread is offering an opinion on his/her beliefs based on admittedly speculative, yet "cutting-edge" scientific research.

Why aren't we, then, allowed to discuss our opinions on this subject without having to bring up "proof" or cite references? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Just state your opinion, try to back it up the best you can, and go on.

Since so much of the matters dealing with this are so subject to change, then we can't be so critical and demanding of the people responding to the post.

It's all just so simple, really. We just don't know a lot of things about our existence, but we're trying...we're trying very hard to know.

Heres another link showing how the brain may be tspping into the future getting data sent back in time. only quantum could allow this to happen..

[urlwww.sentientdevelopments.com...[/url]


[edit on 7-12-2009 by loner007]

reply to post by loner007


That's an interesting article you posted.

There's another theory about consciousness called the CEMI field theory. It states consciousness is found in the brains EM field.

The last cemi field proposition is that the brain’s (conscious) em field can itself influence neuronal firing. Like the first proposition, this is easy to prove and is indeed inevitable. Radio sets and TV’s are designed to be sensitive to the electromagnetic fields of radio waves; but in fact all electrical phenomena are sensitive to the surrounding em field. Neurones are fired by specific structures, known as voltage-gated ion channels that respond to the external em field. Mostly they are gated in such a way that only massive changes to the brain’s em field are likely to influence neurone firing. However, in a busy brain there will be many neurones teetering on the brink of firing and these undecided neurones may be exquisitely sensitive to the em field. The cemi field – our consciousness - will come into play when the brain is poised to make delicate decisions.

That concept of information encoded as an electromagnetic field is actually a very familiar one. We routinely encode complex images and sounds in em fields that we transmit to our TV and radio sets. What I am proposing is that our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop that generates the conscious em field as a kind of informational sink. This informational transfer, through the cem field, may provide distinct advantages over neuronal computing, in rapidly integrating and processing information distributed in different parts of the brain. It may also provide an additional level of computation that is wave-mechanical, rather than digital; one that drives our free will. This is the advantage that consciousness provides: the capacity to make decisions.

www.surrey.ac.uk...

I think Dr. Johnjoe McFadden's theory is pretty interesting. There's also links to his published papers.

It would mean that consciousness is a field.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Hmmi have a problem straight away with that theory it says the consciousness is some sort of electromagnetic field as the theory suggests then any powerful emp would kill us. When nuclear tests was done on american soldiers they was well in range of the bombs powerful emp and if emp can stop computers from working why arent humans affected as well? It dosent stand up. however I am not saying the brain dosent have that or use that EM field but I cant see it as being the source of our consciousness

I can't believe there hasn't been another call to arms over this.

Mystic's and The Bible which gives many scientific facts sometimes centuries
before men of science claim them as their discovery.

"their is nothing new under the sun."

LOL that's actually an idea that I had a while ago! Because I've had some ...kinda dangerous situations in my life I wondered that I didn't actually expirience luck but would be transferred to an alternate reality....
But anyway. I was at a talk about 2012 this WE and they brought quantum mechanics into empathy and telepathy...An actual entanglement of people,was a pretty neat idea. It followed a movie (not a particuarily scientific presentation I'd call it) which at one point speculated cosmic electromagnetism might induce surges of '___' in our system which would be a totally sick thing!
Anyway they argued that soul is a quantum phenomenon which can be entrained with other "souls". However, alternate realities weren't really the discussion.

So uhm anyway just to get back to the topic (I wander astray) you tend to interpret everything in a very if not to say presumptious manner, although I really liked your argument about the universe being a quantum computer...Because essentially it is, but this also implies supernatural phenomena had to be bound to this quantum realm and thus it doesn't surprise me you attempt to describe these within an understanding of a "conventional" theory of the universe.

But if you survived in a different universe you'll probably go along with the idea, that any querry to a quantum induces an alternate universe in which the opposite response is given...But then how much use is there to compute the result in the first place, if basically on this meta-plane, all possible outcomes are true? Oh and what happens if there's a bug? Like somebody invents timetravel...Poof there goes the bluescreen of death

However there's a mathematical argument on the threat "scarcity" on this board, page 5 or 6 I guess, at the bottom, where the poster argues, that the set of possibilities is actually incomplete and that there's a larger set, implying a multi-verse in which all possibilities run parallel....It's interesting since it's a purely mathematical argument!

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I figured this is what you would do.

You figured I would be honest, but then imply that with negative connotations... OK....

Well, I am sorry if you do not value honesty. It is something that I hold very dear to myself and that I strive for on a daily basis and expect from others in return.

Everything that I have talked about is not speculation and there's evidence to support it.

They are theories, not facts, not actual occurrences. They are speculated predicted occurrences that may or may not be true until further research is conducted to prove them true. It's similar to evolutionary theory, it isn't a fact, but a theory at this point. Speculation on one possibility of many.

I have cited links but it's obvious you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

Really now... If I had to say, take a stab in the dark here I would guess you haven't a clue what a flipping clue is.

So I'm going to let you rable on until you bring some evidence to the table. This has nothing to do with being open to all possibilities. These things have evidence and I have cited evidence to support everything I have said.

I haven't made any claims in the contrary, so let's put this straw man back up where the sun don't shine where it belongs. Evidence for a theory doesn't make a theory fact, it's still a theory, a speculated possibility until proven absolutely true. If you can't discern that difference, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading into complex theories.

You have yet to show me where science has shown that matter has an objective existence. I have provided evidence that shows matter doesn't have an objective existence.

Your second straw man in one post. Never made this claim nor have you posited any evidence that it isn't objective. You've posted black hole entropy, QM and Entanglement.

Nothing I have said doesn't line up with experiments when it comes to these issues.

I assume your alluding to the death/alive state being in supposition to one another as in the Schrödinger's cat experiments. Again, speculation and there are other interpretations that are equally valid at this point of time until one interpretation is proven more valid than any other.

It's obvious that your trying to debate something that you know nothing about. Maybe you should study these things and then you can debate them in an intelligent way.

Oh please... Obviously you do not want intelligence to apply in this discussion, it's never been used right from your first post and certainly is not being used by yourself now.

I don't mind debate but you are not saying anything. It's just your opinion. You know there's tons of evidence, experiments and peer reviewed papers out there. If you take the time to read these things maybe you can debate them.

A theory is a a speculation with evidence to support it.; An educated guess. Yet your arguing a few theories that consist of many interpretations, while pick only certain *choice* interpretations as being more valid above all other interpretation and denouncing other theories that "disprove" that interpretation. It's hypocritical to your argument and really... don't even discuss intelligence if you wish to go that route with me, I won't stand for that sort of garbage.

You say you are open to all possibilities because you don't understand the issues.

LMFAO CALLED IT! Knew this damn phrase was going to surface sooner or later.

Tell me, what possibilities are you open to? (be specific and cite sources)

All possibilities and no I won't cite sources as I am not claiming those possibilities as being absolutely true. Christ, you have no idea what burden of proof is do you?

What other interpretations are you debating? (be specific and cite sources).

Your joking right? You either have to be or not bothering to read my posts in their entirety; That is just BS.

Like I said, I'm open to a good debate but you are just trolling.

Learn what a troll is before you brandy it around all willy nilly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, something quick, with like OMG evidences and like stuff, ya know.

There is no continuation of consciousness after death because consciousness does not exist.

We are all zombies who only act as if and think that we have consciousness. Source

A philosophical zombie, p-zombie or p-zed is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain. While it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain), it does not actually have the experience of pain as a putative 'normal' person does.

Nothing is truly in supposition because these states were already determined a long time ago. Source

According to objective collapse theories, superpositions are destroyed spontaneously (irrespective of external observation) when some objective physical threshold (of time, mass, temperature, irreversibility, etc.) is reached. Thus, the cat would be expected to have settled into a definite state long before the box is opened. This could loosely be phrased as "the cat observes itself", or "the environment observes the cat".

Objective collapse theories require a modification of standard quantum mechanics to allow superpositions to be destroyed by the process of time evolution.

A conscious observer is never needed nor required by the universe. Source

These experiments demonstrate a puzzling relationship between the act of measurement and the system being measured, although it is clear from experiment that an "observer" consisting of a single electron is sufficient -- the observer need not be a conscious observer.

Have at it if you can challenge it. I'm not claiming this to be true, but here is a contrary point raised as requested with about as much evidence supportive of it as you've provided for your argument. So debate.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by R-evolve

 

Well quantum mechanics is actually how the smallest objects in the universe work together so as quantum mechanics actually yield the answers to why things work the way they do along with other new things. Somebody more well versed in the theory behind it could explain it better than I can and even correct me if I'm wrong.

But now that you brought it up though that is what the experiment is though. They actually beam light particles through a certain grid and when looking at what was projected it looks a certain way, but when they try to observe to see why the particles are acting that way the particles act a totally different way.

Pretty freaky stuff really.

exccellent vid here..

reply to post by loner007


Frequency of the EMP would effect it.. Not so much the EMP

its all about wave lenghts

reply to post by sirnex

Evidence for a theory doesn't make a theory fact, it's still a theory, a speculated possibility until proven absolutely true.

You really do not know what you are saying... Evidence for a theory?

You create a theory based on observation then gather the evidence for it...

Troll like i said

[edit on 8-12-2009 by 13579]

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by sirnex

 

Evidence for a theory doesn't make a theory fact, it's still a theory, a speculated possibility until proven absolutely true.

You really do not know what you are saying... Evidence for a theory?

You create a theory based on observation then gather the evidence for it...

Troll like i said

[edit on 8-12-2009 by 13579]

Alright then, there are no black holes as Modified Gravity Theory can adequately and accurately equally explain the same phenomena observed.

There is no consciousness as philosophical zombies can equally and accurately describe the true nature of consciousness or the belief in one.

There are a whole plethora of contrary things that are currently theories only, yet all must be equally true or one must be a hypocritical buffoon to accept the validity of one over another that explains the same phenomena.

Your point?

I cannot offer any quantum proof such as the OP has, but I can offer an experience with the dead, well one experience that is.
My cat of 19 years died. First of all, 2 days after her death, I captured her image on camera. In the photo, there is an orb, but upon closer inspection of that photo, I saw her entire body and what seems to be the orb in the center of her body. There were also signs and sounds that she was still there. We heard purring, scratching, and had physical interactions with her, such her jumping from her cat tower onto the couch and actually causing movement of her favorite toys that I put down as trigger objects.
Now to apply this to the OP's post. I believe there are stages of death, because she came to me in my dreams. Each time with a different appearance. In the first dream, she appeared as she looked in life. The next, she was semi-translucent, the next almost completely faded and had what I call dead eyes that were glazed over with a gray appearance, and then the last time, she was invisible, but was definitely there. She is no longer around now, I believe she has reached her complete spiritual form.