Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No'

Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think. One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). A new scientific theory - called biocentrism - refines these ideas. There are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Wow, this article is fascinating. It touches on quantum theory, and basically I just really like the approach taken by the author. Definitely something to ponder while my whole city is shut down by 20 inches of heavy snow. Have a good day everyone.....

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by skunknuts
Apparently this is his first book which strays from his area of expertise in tissue engineering:

www.robertlanza.com...

Books

* Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe

* Essential Stem Cell Methods

* Principles of Tissue Engineering, Third Edition

* Principles of Regenerative Medicine

* Methods in Enzymology: Stem Cell Tools and Other Experimental Protocols

* Methods in Enzymology: Adult Stem Cells

* Methods in Enzymology: Embryonic Stem Cells

* Essentials of Stem Cell Biology

* Handbook of Stem Cells

* Principles of Cloning

I have to agree with the 5th comment posted in reply to the source article in the OP link:

Biocentrism seems one of those mistaken applications of theories from physics to the biological, misapplications borne of little acquaintance with physics.

I remember studying these referenced applications of quantum physics such as

"One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability."

What astounds me is how some of these scientific principles which are accepted at the quantum level are then superimposed on the macro world we readily observe by some people such as the author of this book, where the principles don't necessarily apply.

For example if the macro world worked like the quantum world, you could step on the gas pedal in your car and accelerate from 0mph to 2 mph without having to travel any speed in-between like 1mph. Saying you might accelerate in a "stair step" fashion in the real world would be instantly recognized as false by most people who can observe that their cars simply don't operate that way, yet some people want to believe that other quantum principles similarly manifest themselves in the macro world in ways we can relate to? That does seem like a misapplication of physics. But then again, the author is not a physicist, but rather a tissue engineering medical doctor with an impressive resume in that field, so maybe we should cut him a little slack for not being an expert in physics.

you should read into some quantom mechanics, very interesting stuff. It touch's on this topic, however i dont believe its as straight forward as how it was explained in that article.

Originally posted by Trolloks
you should read into some quantom mechanics, very interesting stuff. It touch's on this topic, however i dont believe its as straight forward as how it was explained in that article.

If I want to read about tissue engineering, I would read Robert Lanza's books on the subject, but I probably wouldn't read a book written by a physicist on the subject. Likewise, if I want to read a book on quantum mechanics, I would read a book written by a professional physicist, and not a biological tissue engineer.

I don't know if you can grasp quantum mechanics by just reading a book on it. I've taken a post-graduate level course in quantum mechanics (after studying it as an undergrad) and it involved so much math that gaining an understanding was as much about doing the math as reading. Here is a summary of some of the mathematical areas involved in quantum theory:

www.cobalt.chem.ucalgary.ca...

I'd be wary of some popular literature referencing quantum mechanics, if written by non-physicists. Also the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" is an example of popular media which distorts quantum mechanics through pseudoscience.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Murky waters my friend. . . While pondering the possible out comes of death is indeed interesting, I'm afraid I can't really say anything helpful.

It seems most of the time anyone who is talking to others about how they feel about death and the possibility of "life" after the fact is merely fishing for validation of their personal beliefs. I'm not saying this is what the person(s) are doing here but its not really a scientific question persay.

Many worlds, meta-physics, life after death, all questions science in its current shape is uncapable of answering. It's all conjecture and certainly won't find validation in the main stream scientific community.

It's more a philisophical question in my opinion, and this being the science board I won't go into my thoughts on that.

The article says energy isn't created or destroyed but it doesn't say what energy does do and that is change forms. Whose to say that the energy in your body created by chemicles remains the same energy when the body no longer functions. . . .

I'm not saying there is no life after death merely pointing out that once the body stops its metabolic processes the energy becomes potential enrgy in the form of food for scavangers parasites etc. The corpse is consumed and the energy that once made up its functionality is now maggot food and compost. . . thus continuing the great chain of life

Grim? Perhaps. . . Right? Perhaps not. But at least as valid as the OP article if were actually talking about consevation of energy.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by constantwonder]

reply to post by constantwonder


An afterlife doesn't appeal to alot of people anyway, including me. No matter which form it takes. Never seen any evidence to suggest it's nothing more than people wishing it to be so. Anyway Arbitrageur kinda nailed it,applying the quantum world to the macro. The quantum world is just crazy, not very scientific i know . But many things observed cannot be applied to the macro scale, it would be one crazy existence if they could! Im no scientist though...

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Solomons]

The best thing about death is that even though religions and philosophers have spent thousands of years thinking about it,and telling us what they think is the truth-no one knows for sure.
So if theres some form of afterlife,thats all well and good-but the best thing is that if there is nothing when we die,then we will not be there to observe that "nothing."

So it should not be something we worry about here on Earth.

Amazing that some religions spent so many centuries attempting to convince us all of something that they cannot possibly know the answer to themselves.

Sounds like a con to me,designed to control the masses.