Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife

page: 1
36
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+17 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist


Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion



This is something we've always waiting for , that science admits that there is life after death , or there's no death or life at all ? it's consciousness in different stages.. And consciousness builds everything we see around us.
Trying to comprehend this " but alway have felt this in some way it's true" is almost impossible.



Most scientists would probably say that the concept of an afterlife is either nonsense, or at the very least unprovable. Yet one expert claims he has evidence to confirm an existence beyond the grave - and it lies in quantum physics.


Every now and then, a simple yet radical idea shakes the very foundations of knowledge



But can we isolate consciousness to every individual in this world and if that is so,can we then merge consciousness with all other consciousness to establish new realities? And does this also mean that we can put the holographic model within this theory?

This raises so many questions ..






From Other Scientists

“It’s a masterpiece — truly a magnificent essay. Bob Lanza is to be congratulated for a fresh and highly erudite look at the question of how perception and consciousness shape reality and common experience.
Michael Lysaght, Professor of Medical Science and Engineering, Brown University and Director of Brown’s Center for Biomedical Engineering


As an astrophysicist, I focus my attention on objects that are very large and very far away, ignoring the whole issue of consciousness as a critical part of the Universe.
Eric Berger, Science Editor, Houston Chronicle

So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it—or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private—furiously blushing as we mouth the words'.
Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University





Mail online

Biocentrism Theory of Everything



+8 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
One man's opinion does not equal proof.

Next.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Sorry man , but the thing that bugs me about these statements is the sheer ignorance shown toward the fact that the human brain decays after death ........ i agree with "some" people that the brain will dream away immediatley after death , but once the decay starts I seriously doubt there is anything left of the "person" or mind after that crucial stage , even dreaming is far fetched without oxygen etc. Science is taking a dump on religion and refusing to flush it .



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jefferton
 


I think that if five would say it, your statement would be the same..and it's two btw...



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Somewhere in my quantum scientific musings, I believe - perhaps naievely - that all energy transforms into something else.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I don't want to dis your post, interesting...BUT....

""
Professor Lanza says biocentrism explains that the universe only exists because of an individual’s consciousness of it – essentially life and biology are central to reality, which in turn creates the universe; the universe itself does not create life. The same applies to the concepts of space and time, which Professor Lanza describes as “simply tools of the mind”.
""

You can read this is COUNTLESS NewAge, NDE, Afterlife books. This theory is faaaaar from new. I guess it's making news now because he is a respected scientist?

Grab any random book on the subject which is not crappy, rest assured they will bring in quantum theory at some point. And..correct me if I am wrong....what he may say and describe in scientific terms has been described in so called "NewAge-y" terms decades ago already...start with the SETH books etc...and so many other scientists, doctors etc. Just saying.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EnemyOfTheSane
 


I don't see why this would rule out religion it could be part of it, or even substantiate this whole idea ?
edit on 0b12America/ChicagoFri, 15 Nov 2013 17:35:12 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoFri, 15 Nov 2013 17:35:12 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


"Consciousness" has not even been properly defined. No one even knows what it is, its properties and how it works. So how can it be proof of afterlife?



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I just downloaded a sample to my Kindle. Thanks for the heads up.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NiNjABackflip
 


I think I'm aware of what it is..

But I also have many questions how it all works it seems that Wikihas the answers"cough" as always..
edit on 0b19America/ChicagoFri, 15 Nov 2013 17:59:19 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoFri, 15 Nov 2013 17:59:19 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
okay, let's look at the double slit experiment.

photons are shot at 2 slits in a metal plate, one photon at a time, behind which is a screen the particles smash into. the photons pass thru the slits and interfer with each other, creating an interference pattern on the screen in which is seen multiple bands of hits. an interference pattern is what you see when the peaks of waves (like waves of water) hit a restraining barrier. so the photons are behaving like waves. however, when a recording device is put into place to see what slit each particle goes thru, the photons stop acting like waves, stop interfering with each other, and start acting like particles and hit the screen in 2 rows directly behind the slits.

to find out if the recording device is causing the effect, the part that records the data is turned off, however the sensor is left on. the particles go back to acting like waves. so it's not the mere act of sensing, but also the act of collecting the data in memory. this means that when there is nothing recording the data, the photons are simple probability, existing in a state of what if. particles are not solidifying from the waves, because there's no reason for them too. they are just probabilities until something records their actions.

is there anyway to explain this outside of the idea that the conscious action of recording data, causes the data to become 3d reality?



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


The thing with quantum consciousness is that most people who have written about it don't really know about quantum physics. For example most misconstrue the concept of the observer. While I haven't read the essay I do find it to be quite telling that out of all of the scientists you quoted in support this, none of them are quantum physicists.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I really can't be bothered to debate these kind of threads anymore. Here is a video of Pam Reynolds' experience. Even the DOCTORS are stumped, but I'm sure some members of ATS know better.


edit on 15-11-2013 by CallYourBluff because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2013 by CallYourBluff because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Xcalibur254
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


The thing with quantum consciousness is that most people who have written about it don't really know about quantum physics. For example most misconstrue the concept of the observer. While I haven't read the essay I do find it to be quite telling that out of all of the scientists you quoted in support this, none of them are quantum physicists.


Really? Stuart Hameoff and Roger Penrose know nothing of quantum conciousness? Move along dummy.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Xcalibur254
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


The thing with quantum consciousness is that most people who have written about it don't really know about quantum physics. For example most misconstrue the concept of the observer. While I haven't read the essay I do find it to be quite telling that out of all of the scientists you quoted in support this, none of them are quantum physicists.


well what about leonard susskind?
when i mentioned him in another thread on the topic, i was told that just because a scientist has an opinion, it doesn't mean he's right. so then the question was, well if scientists can be wrong, then either 1) we need evidence he's wrong or 2) we need to stop using the excuse that science is always right. now i know some will say that science is the first to say they are not always right. so then what is the point in using the excuse that he's not right simply because you don't agree with him ? you need evidence to refute his theory, do you not? i mean how does science move ahead, if people can just exclaim it's not true without proving it's not true. make sense, in other words.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

undo
okay, let's look at the double slit experiment.

photons are shot at 2 slits in a metal plate, one photon at a time, behind which is a screen the particles smash into. the photons pass thru the slits and interfer with each other, creating an interference pattern on the screen in which is seen multiple bands of hits. an interference pattern is what you see when the peaks of waves (like waves of water) hit a restraining barrier. so the photons are behaving like waves. however, when a recording device is put into place to see what slit each particle goes thru, the photons stop acting like waves, stop interfering with each other, and start acting like particles and hit the screen in 2 rows directly behind the slits.

to find out if the recording device is causing the effect, the part that records the data is turned off, however the sensor is left on. the particles go back to acting like waves. so it's not the mere act of sensing, but also the act of collecting the data in memory. this means that when there is nothing recording the data, the photons are simple probability, existing in a state of what if. particles are not solidifying from the waves, because there's no reason for them too. they are just probabilities until something records their actions.

is there anyway to explain this outside of the idea that the conscious action of recording data, causes the data to become 3d reality?


Would it not stand to reason that the recording sensor is giving off waves as well, thereby disrupting the waves of quantum particles?



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


it is interesting that it is the collecting of data that effects it but yes, it may very well be, and this where i asked the question -- does our brain do the same thing. the brain is a set of functional particles and waves that make up brain tissues, blood vessels, neurons, etc. they have certain electro-chemical pathways that record data. this was in response to someone who said: electrons have been observed changing the waves to particles. my thought was, well, if there are no electrons in our brains, we're in trouble. hehe

edit on 15-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 

Some people strive to live forever, spending their lives finding the ways to do that.
But, that is not how things work atm.
Do I believe there is something happening after physical body dies?
Yes I do, it has got to be something more. But I don't care much, everyone will eventually find on their own when the time comes.
We are masters of our lives, not death, or anything what happens after death for that matter.
You as a living being cannot control death, same as death cannot control the living.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by InTheLight
 


it is interesting that it is the collecting of data that effects it but yes, it may very well be, and this where i asked the question -- does our brain do the same thing. the brain is a set of functional particles and waves that make up brain tissues, blood vessels, etc. they have certain electro-chemical pathways that record data. this was in response to someone who said: electrons have been observed changing the waves to particles. my thought was, well, if there are no electrons in our brains, we're in trouble. hehe


Hehe...love it. Yes, I muse that we have electrons in all that is us... including thoughts. I just wonder, do we, can we, send out thought waves ... out there... for a cause and effect scenario?



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The thing with quantum consciousness is that most people who have written about it don't really know about quantum physics


Me too , but I'm trying to understand it.. And I really don't know if it's true or not. Although I do believe in the afterlife and reincarnation.. But I'm still hoping that science can substantiate the spiritual idea that there could be an afterlife or heavens or whatever any spiritualists want to call it..



top topics
 
36
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join