It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Quantum Mechanics shows there's life after death

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 





So when some people talk of death as something that's seperated from the whole it makes no sense in light of quantum mechanics.


In the light of MC, I think there is no life or death at all.

Just potential and all encompassing consciousness. (the source)

Life and death are just experiences of a small piece of this uber-consciousnes programmed to manifest reality from potential, according to the parameters, expectations and programming of this particular piece of consciousness. (individual soul)

Imo.

Einstein: "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one"

Imo, the only thing that truly exists is consciousness, without it there is nothing.




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



I will just go over 3 things that you said that shows me your just phoning it in and you don't understand these things.


You failed to read the source links *and* the quoted texts that apply here. Your just arguing your biased opinion for the sake of arguing, not for any reasonable intelligent debate. You should be ashamed of yourself; Intellectual laziness should *never* be something someone strives for.


????? What does a philisophical debate about Zombies have to do with these observed and tested theories in quantum mechanics? Again, these things that I'm talking about are not speculation. Quantum Mechanics is the reason you watch Cable TV or talk on your cell phone. Zombies have nothing to do with it.


The stance is incredibly applicable here. For instance, your discussing one aspect of consciousness that may or may not be true that deals with quantum mechanical aspects. This interpretation has never been proven, you've never showed such sources of proof that describe this interpretation as an absolute fact, and so thus any other interpretation given is equally valid at this time.

Both theories explain the same phenomena, that of consciousness and what it is. Neither have been proven true and neither have been proven false, they are equally valid. If you don't understand the concept of a philosophical zombie, then please take the time to actually read the source link I had provided for more information on this aspect of consciousness.


It's superposition not supposition. If you would have read the post and tried to understand it instead of being a troll, you would debate silly things like this.


Oh no, I got one word misspelled. Build a bridge you poser.



Also you have it wrong. It's eveything is in a state of superposition and there's just the appearence of collapse because of "decoherence." So the wave function is still present but it can't be measured because of decoherence.


Please learn to read and dispense with the BS straw men arguments derived from your lack of reading. I gave a different interpretation to the observation that is equally valid as the interpretation you seem to believe is an absolute proven fact.

Obviously you don't wish to debate, you just wish to argue your point of view as being absolutely true and all other equally valid interpretations are wrong because your opinion supersedes that of all scientists. Yet, hypocritically, you will pounce on certain sciences if they don't agree with your biased opinion. This was never about debating, was it?


If you would have read my post, you wouldn't even have said these silly things. You should have tried to understand it before you tried to debate this. It's one thing to give an opinion it's another thing to try and debate something you clearly don't understand. This is a troll. You just want to debate in opposition no matter how silly you look. I would welcome a debate if you had a clue as to what you are debating.


I just gave three equally valid interpretations to observed phenomena in contrary to your interpretations of those phenomena. If that is trolling, then your a tool.


Again, this shows you don't understand anything about the things you are posting. You did this in the other thread. You assumed and made an ass out of yourself. You are looking worse with this nonsense.


I don't understand... God damn I love that argument. When in don't, scream you just don't get it.


Decoherence is not connected to the choice of the observer. So yes a conscious observer is needed to make a choice.


Straw man, never mentioned anything about decoherence there. If you look closely and comprehend what your reading, you would notice the given quoted text is about consciousness that utilizes an aspect of quantum mechanics to prove a point that such a thing as consciousness is not needed nor required by the universe for it to exist alluding to the possibility that we can indeed be nothing more than philosophical zombies that only think and believe we have consciousness.

I'm pretty sure I told you where you can shove those straw men.


What you are talking about is called extreme determinism. This means there has to be a parallel universe for every choice that's made. Decoherence says nothing about the choice of the observer.


Straw man and meaningless to the points I raised.


For instance, iin the case of Schrodinger's cat the observer has to make the choice to carry out the experiment, the observer has to make the choice to open the box. The observer may make the choice to call his wife, open a window, grab a cup of coffee or talk to his assistant before they open the box.


The interpretation implied by your previous arguments in regards to Schrodinger's cat is one of a few different interpretations. If you would *please* stop being an imbecile for the sake of being an imbecile and read my source links or at the very least the quoted texts that give contrary interpretations, then we wouldn't be having retard sessions here.


Decoherence is not connected to the choice of the observer. The sources you quoted without reading are based on "decoherence." This is one of the things that I have been talking about.


Straw man.


Again, everything that I have said about things like decoherence, non locality, black hole thermodynamic,entanglement and more have been true. Like I said I welcome a debate but I don't like ignorance.


True to the point that what you quoted does exist, but true to the point in proving your opinions of the theories it is not. You've never once cited any sources in regards to these particular aspects proving your point.


Here's a little about decoherence.


Explicitly acknowledge in one of many interpretations. This make's it about as valid as the other interpretations that do not explicitly acknowledge this particular interpretation as none have been proven truer than any others as of yet.


So let's look at the cat in the box. The cat is in a state of superposition but it only last for a short time. A classical object like a cat will interact with their enviroment and collapse into one state or another before the observer opens the box.

So the observers choice creates reality. This is because an observer can reduce uncertainty. This is how Shannon defined information.


This is but one interpretation of the same observed phenomena that is equally valid at this time as the other interpretations as none have been proven more truer than the others as of yet.


I wish you would take the time to read and understand these things if you want to debate an opposing view.


About the funniest thing you've said so far!


Just to reiterate my stance here. I am not against the possibility itself, I'm against the arrogant arguing that this one interpretation of many is absolutely true while the other interpretations are false. If your still unable to discern this immensely obvious point here, then perhaps debate isn't your forte, perhaps critical thought is just insanely alien to you.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You showed once again you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

You have not listed any other interpretations because I have just talked about observed evidence.

The whole Zombie thing is stupid because I'm not talking about an interpretation. I'm talking about things that have been shown in experiments.

This one paragraph shows your just a troll that doesn't have a clue.


Just to reiterate my stance here. I am not against the possibility itself, I'm against the arrogant arguing that this one interpretation of many is absolutely true while the other interpretations are false. If your still unable to discern this immensely obvious point here, then perhaps debate isn't your forte, perhaps critical thought is just insanely alien to you.


Exactly my point. Your debating against something you have no clue about just for the sake of debate.

I'm not talking about an interpretation of non locality. I'm talking about non locality.

en.wikipedia.org...

When I'm talking about entanglement, it's not an interpretation.

en.wikipedia.org...

When I talk about black hole thermodynamics, it's not an interpretation.

en.wikipedia.org...

When I talk about decoherence, I'm not talking about an interpretation.

en.wikipedia.org...

When I talk about qubits or information theory, it's not an interpretation

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, what interpretation are you speaking of?

When I talk about delayed choice, quantum eraser and more it's not an interpretation.

Somebody has lied to you and told you that you were a good debater and you think you can debate anything. You just look silly because you obviously don'ty know what your talking about.

Again, what interpretation are you talking about? I have just talked about physics and experiments that are well known.

When it comes to non locality, what interpretation are you talking about?

When it comes to entanglement, what interpretation are you talking about?

When it comes to decoherence, what interpretation are you talking about?

When it comes to there's no evidence that matter has an objective existence, what interpretation are you talking about?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I just had to quote this LOL


Decoherence is not connected to the choice of the observer. The sources you quoted without reading are based on "decoherence." This is one of the things that I have been talking about.

Straw man.


Straw man??? Have you even read any of my post. Decoherence gives you the illusion of seperation from the whole. Decoherence is not connected to the choice of the observer.

Starw man, can you say BS artist .



Here's an explanation of decoherence.

Explicitly acknowledge in one of many interpretations. This make's it about as valid as the other interpretations that do not explicitly acknowledge this particular interpretation as none have been proven truer than any others as of yet.


Talk about gobbledygook

What in the world does this nonsense mean? Can you say troll.

What other "valid interpretations"

This nonsense is really stinking up the thread.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well, considering all the virtual aspects that are present and used in the creation of a piece emotionally charged music one need not look far to see the invisible qualities of existence. I'm not completely sold on the multi-verse and if I were I would think that the virtual constructs (mad,sad,glad,afraid and the more complex shades) comprise the state of being after death. What concerns me is my state of being at death...will I pass on "Clothed" properly? I can only have faith in Jesus and attempt to iron out the wrinkles. The spiritual symbolism in Christs words and pauline gospels allude to such an ethereal, virtual reality.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

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.


I don't find an iota of sense in what you wrote. Quantum is not "underlying framework for classical physics". I studied both. Classical may be a limiting case of quantum, but that's about it. "Consciousness on a quantum level" in the context of this paragraph looks like a lump of pseudo-scientific demagoguery. Speak not of things you can't grasp.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Did you read the links i posted on consciousness at the quantum level. None of it is pseudo science as you put it. The Orch model was develooped by stuart Hammeroth and Roger Penrose....Now unless you are more qualifiied than those I will follow their work.
And did u read the link in which the human mind anticipates events before they happen? Obviously not......

heres another link to muse over
discovermagazine.com...

[edit on 8-12-2009 by loner007]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Edit to show replied to wrong person

[edit on 8-12-2009 by FlySolo]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
This is mind blowing stuff. What are the implications of this? Where do we go from here? I'm still trying to get my head around this. Does this mean results are already predetermined? These are only photons however, but still.

" In summary, we have chosen whether to know which slit the particle went through, by choosing to use the telescopes or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which slit the particle went through. We have delayed this choice until a time after the particles "have gone through one slit or the other slit or both slits," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines whether the particle passed through one slit or the other slit or both slits, so to speak. If you want to think of it this way (I don't recommend it), the particle exhibited after-the-fact wave-like behavior at the slits if you chose the screen; and it exhibited after-the-fact particle-like behavior at the slits if you chose the telescopes. Therefore, our delayed choice of how to measure the particle determines how the particle actually behaved at an earlier time."

Wheeler



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Ok, doing some reading here. The Copenhagen interpretation is 70 years old? and the delayed choice experiment was done in 1982?
I'm only learning of this now? I'm just a regular joe so there is no telling how far advanced we actually are and we don't even have clue.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Im envisioning the collection of information with in this thread and getting a tree, where every time you branch off, you die going one way and live going the other. But the issue I have with this is, are you the same person when you pop into the other dimension? If so, does time still take effect on your age? If it does, and you continue to branch off and live forever, wont you never die even into old age? How does that work? How old can you get? Do you become a little raisin on the ground? I just cant figure out what could happen at that point, when your too old to live any more. Too many questions begin to flood my mind with this subject. It starts to drive me nuts.
Im going to loose reality and vanish into the nothing if i dont stop thinking about this.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I've always believe mysticism is the ultimate truth. Whether people embrace it or not, physical reality is illusionary and the only thing existing is consciousness.

As Descartes stated, "you can doubt your body, but you can never doubt your mind."



[edit on 8-12-2009 by GrandKitaro777]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


exactly. energy can be neither created nor destroyed. matter is just energy trapped in form.


Consciousness can neither be created nor destroyed.

A Simple Quantum Experiment You Can Do At Home.

Take three pieces of polarized plastic (old sunglasses will do)

Rotate two of them until they are dark when looked through. Now place a third piece between the two. They suddenly get light. Why???????
Called the Einstein Podansky Effect?


I wouldn't go so far as to simply state in such a matter of factual manner that consciousness can neither be creator nor destroyed unless your willing, able and ready to put forth all knowledge of consciousness that will *ever* be known both now and in the future in which to make such bold statements. Have you studied neurology, biology, chemistry, AI, electrical engineering, or anything that would have any slight remote possibility of giving rise to a conscious sentient being naturally?

I can't even wrap my head around the polarized sun glasses analogy... Your obviously screwing around, stop it. It is not funny.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Just wanted to mention that you had left out that the EPR is not so much an effect, but a paradox that shouldn't exist. A paradox is an indication that our maths and understandings of the inner mechanics behind reality are *wrong*, not that the EPR paradox has some 'magical' implications to consciousness. Ugh...

[edit on 7-12-2009 by sirnex]


Really?
Everything has a magical implication to it.
And you dont know what anything is, so there!!!!!
Math and physics can only tell you the how of things. How they behave under varying circumstances.
Nobody knows what anything is. What is space ,time,matter, energy,or forces?

It is all just something mysterious that is happening.

If you surrender to that mysteriousness you may become one with it. You are the mysteriousness. You are already one with it. Thus since it is you ,there is no what.

The Einstein Podansky Rosen effect does illustrate the mysteriousness of light traveling as both a wave and particle.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix RisingYou will always find yourself in the reality where you survive death.

These states are connected and therefore there has to be quantum immortality.


I don't know exactly how to say this other then telling you no, that isn't correct. When you die you don't just end up in a different universe in which you survived whatever killed you in the first place. What if you died of old age (natural causes) would you keep living in a 98 year old body, die again, and come back as some 100 year old body etc.? No... and sorry if I'm taking what you said wrong, but that's what it seems like you're saying.

I do believe our souls are immortal, and that all of time is happening at once, so yes we are dead and alive. But when we speak about being dead and alive we are talking biologically dead/alive. The soul does not die, your memories do not die either, and this is all due to our consciousness. The memories you have are what travels to the 2nd sphere/plane where the dead go. I haven't gotten much farther in my knowledge yet to keep on talking about this subject, but what I've said so far is accurate to my account I believe.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by highlyoriginal]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

I'm bored and I have the flu, so I read your thread.

The claim that quantum mechanics has anything to say about life after death is nonsense. Absolute fiddlesticks. Pure twaddle. Eyewatering poppycock.

I trust I make myself clear.

There are people who really have studied physics on this thread--you know, went to university and specialized in it. I am one of them. There is a person who actually does physcis on this thread: buddhasystem. We all agree the proposition is nonsense.

Forget about proof, you haven't even posted a logical argument to back up what you say. And you never will, because the proposition is in itself illogical.

Edited to cut out the offensive bit.

[edit on 9/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


This is the kind of thread that makes no sense. I have debated these issues and everything I have said, I have presented evidence to support what I'm saying.

When you say things like this, it shows you can't debate the issue so you have to say things like fiddlesticks lol. Give me a break.


The claim that quantum mechanics has anything to say about life after death is nonsense. Absolute fiddlesticks. Pure twaddle. Eyewatering poppycock.


This reminds me of a quote from Alfred Russel Wallace. A biologist who worked with Darwin on Natural Selection and he was a spiritualist.


I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.


Either I'm debating people who don't have a clue as to what there talking about or I'm debating people who do know about these things but they can't refute what I'm saying so they debate these things on the grounds of absurdity or "fiddlesticks."




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by highlyoriginal
 


You asked a good question.


What if you died of old age (natural causes) would you keep living in a 98 year old body, die again, and come back as some 100 year old body etc.? No... and sorry if I'm taking what you said wrong, but that's what it seems like you're saying.


Let's sa a 100 year old man dies from a stroke. Is there a state where he's not dead? Yes.

So he dies in one reality and in another reality he 's alive. There's several things that can occur. He could live long enough to see breakthroughs in nanotechnology and genetics when it comes to aging. He could find himself between realities. He could find himself in a universe where time runs backwards.


The basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—toward the future. Why? To account for it, we have to delve into the prehistory of the universe, to a time before the big bang. Our universe may be part of a much larger multiverse, which as a whole is time-symmetric. Time may run backward in other universes.


www.scientificamerican.com...

My point is, decoherence gives us the illusion of seperation from these other states. We are minds experiencing these different realities and if we look at one state in isolation of these other states then we are just living in Plato's Cave.

Entanglement shows us that we are connected to these other states but decoherence gives us this cave like disconnect from the whole.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is the kind of thread that makes no sense.

I suppose you mean post.


I have debated these issues and everything I have said, I have presented evidence to support what I'm saying.

No, you haven't. Don't feel bad; you clearly have no scientific training, so you don't know what evidence even means in that context. Your sin is to make specific claims in an area of knowledge in which you are a stranger. This is also the reason why you cannot understand that what you have put forward constitutes neither evidence nor argument.

I'm sorry, but it's a fact: education does make a difference.

Look, it's like this. You aren't (I think this is a safe guess) an aerospace engineer. Would you consider yourself competent to diagnose and repair a faulty AE3007 turbofan? Of course you wouldn't. Well, believe me, quantum mechanics is a heck of a lot harder than aerospace engineering. And you, who have no training in physics, are trying to present a case based on quantum mechanics. Obviously, it is a futile attempt. Now do you understand?


Alfred Russel Wallace. A biologist who worked with Darwin on Natural Selection and he was a spiritualist.

I know who Wallace was, and you are wrong even in these elementary details of biography. Wallace worked out the theory of natural selection completely independent of Darwin. He wasn't even living in England at the time; he was naturalizing in the Malay Archipelago. He didn't become a spiritualist until much later, in his forties, after various disappointments in love and science had affected his mental equilibrium.

Like any admirer of Charles Darwin, I know a little about Wallace--he was also a colleague and correspondent of an ancestor of mine, Edward Trimen.


...or I'm debating people who do know about these things but they can't refute what I'm saying...

Correct. Because, lad, you see, you're not actually saying anything.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Typical nonsense.

Nothing you said means anything pertaining to this thread or the things that I have presented.

I think you should take your "fiddlesticks" and "poppeycock" and get a clue.

These are the silly things that people say when they have no argument.

I will just keep ending these posts with Alfred Russel Wallace quote until you debate something instead of pontificating about "fiddlesticks" lol. Some of you guys are funny when you don't have a clue.


I thus learnt my first great lesson in the inquiry into these obscure fields of knowledge, never to accept the disbelief of men or their accusations of imposture or of imbecility, as of any weight when opposed to the repeated observation of facts by other men, admittedly sane and honest. The whole history of science shows us that whenever the educated and scientific men of any age have denied the facts of other investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility, the deniers have always been wrong.



[edit on 9-12-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
hmmm i have posted several links in this thread. I suggest people read them before posting.............

www.quantumconsciousness.org...
www.quantum-mind.co.uk...
discovermagazine.com...
www.sentientdevelopments.com...
[edit on 9-12-2009 by loner007]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by loner007]




top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join