Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife

double slit, the first version i encountered


double slit, the continuation of the experiment

reply to post by undo


So , what , thousands if not millions - billions of years of mankind killing and eating eachother doesn`t count ?

Do you kow how many ghosts there should be on this planet ? ..... neither do i , it would be illogical to claim such a thing for many reasons , but the number would be rediculous ...... there is no proof , what-so-ever , of an afterlife . If there was we would be recieving guidance by now , would we not ? Wouldn`t we be getting advice from gods on how to figh cancer etc . ?

undo
double slit, the first version i encountered

double slit, the continuation of the experiment

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

I believe light energy is different from conscious thought energy, so where light energy may be easily manipulated by other forces, perhaps our conscious thought energy waves are the force which creates everything, or makes all that is and all that can be, come into existence, or become a part of our collectively perceived reality.

I certainly hope my train of thought is understandable.

EnemyOfTheSane
reply to post by undo

 

So , what , thousands if not millions - billions of years of mankind killing and eating eachother doesn`t count ?

Do you kow how many ghosts there should be on this planet ? ..... neither do i , it would be illogical to claim such a thing for many reasons , but the number would be rediculous ...... there is no proof , what-so-ever , of an afterlife . If there was we would be recieving guidance by now , would we not ? Wouldn`t we be getting advice from gods on how to figh cancer etc . ?

okay so observable evidence trumps and disproves things you can't see? can you see the electrons and so forth, involved in generating the electricity for your house? or do you only see the end results? i dunno but your approach suggests we just stop trying to figure it out. throw away the text books and just assume that what we see visually, is all there is, and explanation or cause, is irrelevant. that's an odd position to have, is it not?

undo

EnemyOfTheSane
reply to post by undo

 

So , what , thousands if not millions - billions of years of mankind killing and eating eachother doesn`t count ?

Do you kow how many ghosts there should be on this planet ? ..... neither do i , it would be illogical to claim such a thing for many reasons , but the number would be rediculous ...... there is no proof , what-so-ever , of an afterlife . If there was we would be recieving guidance by now , would we not ? Wouldn`t we be getting advice from gods on how to figh cancer etc . ?

okay so observable evidence trumps and disproves things you can't see? can you see the electrons and so forth, involved in generating the electricity for your house? or do you only see the end results? i dunno but your approach suggests we just stop trying to figure it out. throw away the text books and just assume that what we see visually, is all there is, and explanation or cause, is irrelevant. that's an odd position to have, is it not?

PMSL , oh man .

So i need to believe in ghosts because i don`t have a highly dangerous set-up that allows me to see the electricity powerig my PC ?

You can SEE electricity , we`ve proven that already .

Ghosts etc. ...... all those tv shows , and not one real ghost.

C`mon Undo , i know you`re intelligent ..... stop playing with me and just let me have it.

reply to post by EnemyOfTheSane


alrighty. have you seen the hydrogen atom?
i mean, personally seen it with your own eyeballs and not a painting or 3d model or molecular art. the sun is composed of countless hydrogen atoms, as well as helium atoms and naked protons etc. but have you ever seen one, first hand, just one? don't deflect, answer question.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


You are absolutely correct. The core of what he proposes is nothing new under the sun. In fact, he wasn't even the first "respectable scientist" to even espouse this stuff. It was common enough back in the 60's and 70's amongst many distinguished scientists. Lots of very expensive books on the subject that are not for the likes of the common people....apparently.

The thing I wonder is whether or not Lanza here remembers any of that or realizes that he sounds like a puppet regurgitating crap he was probably fed as an exceptional young mind.

reply to post by undo


I can honestly say that i have not seen it in bare flesh with a naked eye , is this important ? are ghosts made of this ? you have me on the edge of my seat Undo ....

EnemyOfTheSane
reply to post by undo

 

I can honestly say that i have not seen it in bare flesh with a naked eye , is this important ? are ghosts made of this ? you have me on the edge of my seat Undo ....

okay does it exist? if you haven't seen a single one with your naked eye, it must not exist. the only evidence you have of the observable kind you prefer, is that the sun warms up stuff, makes things grow, causes evaporation, the green house effect and occassionally, remote suns have been known to blow up. other than that, you have no idea why it does that because you're only allowing yourself observable conditions without investigation.

reply to post by NorEaster


So, I just read the sample of this guy's book, and he's just another advocate of the primordial consciousness notion. Nothing new. I assume that he does believe that by the end of the full book he has adequately defended his belief that conscious awareness is the fundamental platform upon which all that is material, physical, dynamic, and definably existent rests, but I'd love to get the crib notes on what he sees as the basis of conscious awareness - preferably without the traditional cop-out that declares consciousness to be infinitely present and beyond the physical "here and now" of Time (even as conscious awareness obviously reacts to time-bound incident, anticipates the cause and effect of before and after, and remember/learns due to what has happened as it deals with what is and prepares for what may be yet to come).

I was kinda hoping for something more ground-breaking, but then the publishing date is 2010, so I guess I should've known better. Oh well.

reply to post by InTheLight


yeah something like that. sorry i didn't respond further, i was just trying to decide what you were getting at, and then had to mull over how to answer it.

reply to post by undo


You seem to be under the impression that I do not believe in what I can not see with the naked eye , I have personally been electrocuted , haha , I know fine well that electricity exists . Where as I have not been " haunted " yet I have also seen no evidence at all confirming the existence of ghosts and demons etc.

Writings of opium-addicted cave dwellers are seen as fact by modern humans ------- that is one of the biggest things holding us back .

When a human hears a story they store it , log it in their mind , and use sections of that story to create stories in the future .... in other words , stories of ghosts etc. are lies created by sad individuals who are seeking attention and/or money for their story .

Adults are becoming more like children by the day , and this ghost crap is assisting the agenda.

reply to post by EnemyOfTheSane


do you believe black holes exist?
this is going somewhere so i'm interested in your perspective

CallYourBluff

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.

Let them show me the math that proves life after death. Must be one hell of a Hamiltonian. I'll wait.

Richard Conn Henry:

...the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.

And that, is where the books premise falls. How does the animal 'know' what to create? I don't mean how to know intentionally, but by having some template that guides its capacity for creation as an automatic response?

elysiumfire
Richard Conn Henry:

...the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.

And that, is where the books premise falls. How does the animal 'know' what to create? I don't mean how to know intentionally, but by having some template that guides its capacity for creation as an automatic response?

How does an organism know how to grow? How to turn stem cells into specific cells for a specific purpose?

How do two creatures know how to procreate?

Some things, like language, seem to be learned. But most are inherent in the fractal nature of reality.

InTheLight
Somewhere in my quantum scientific musings, I believe - perhaps naievely - that all energy transforms into something else.

If that is actually true, and with respect is is in no way an original idea of course, then i'm afraid it does actually mean that there is only death for the person.

Why?

Simply put, if the Human 'personality', which includes among other things - our general personality in terms of attitude to life, to others, to belief systems, to politics, to war, to peace, to love and hate, likes and dislikes and also our experiential memories, our personal histories..who we are...is lost.

Turning all of that into 'another form of energy' means logically, what we are, were or may have become is going to be irrevocably altered, changed and altogether 'not us anymore'.

The energy, flowing through your light fixtures and computer for example isn't alive, it doesn't have experiential memory, it just flows.

Going with the flow is one thing, but changing from a thinking and feeling Human entity into some 'other form of energy' could literally mean we become nothing more than a power source for something else to use.

I don't see the attraction to becoming a light body, if that light body happens to be a desk lamp.

MysterX

InTheLight
Somewhere in my quantum scientific musings, I believe - perhaps naievely - that all energy transforms into something else.

If that is actually true, and with respect is is in no way an original idea of course, then i'm afraid it does actually mean that there is only death for the person.

I don't see the attraction to becoming a light body, if that light body happens to be a desk lamp.

Well, this one comes up several times a year on ATS. Partly, it's a confusion that stems from an intentional conflation of New Age terminology with physics terminology, that doesn't match up in any way. The woo term 'energy' has no resemblance to the way that term is used in physics. So you get people trying to form some sort of syncretic statement like "the first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and woo says we are all energy beings, THEREFORE, we cannot die! We are just transformed into beings of another sort of energy! Proved by physics!", when, of course, nothing of the sort has occurred.

As a pragmatic empiricist, I would say you are not a being of energy. It takes chemical energy to make the wheels go around that cause "you", but you are not energy. Your consciousness is an emergent property of the way your neural nets are formed. When you die, the structure of what makes you a particular individual, the memories, experiences, and changes gathered over a lifetime are all unstructured, and become noise. The thermal energy leaves your body, you become room temperature, and then bugs, nematodes and bacteria consume the chemical energy of your body. The energy that was there remains, scattered among many other lifeforms and the dirt, but it is become unstructured, and there is no remnant of "you" as you conceive it.

Jefferton
One man's opinion does not equal proof.

Next.

Well I can say that I have been doing research into quantum physics as a part of consciousness for a while, and first of all, I believe it is definitely something that aids in giving us free will and creativity and the like.

One second - I want to interject into my own monologue. Even in this case, we are talking about constructing theories and experiments that have not been carried out yet, so Jefferton has a point (even if it may only be temporary).

I am also starting to get the idea that it is a way for us to communicate with the Astral Realm. As in astral travel, astral projection, remote viewing - I've even had conversations with people involved in the C.I.A.'s remote viewing program before.

I got to where I was by making the assumption that God and spirituality did not exist, by the way, and then tried to explain the anomalies through science only.

I'm getting to the point where I'm working on mechanics and theories involving quantum consciousness, and I'm also getting to the point where I was surprised to find out that there is the possibility other spirits out there that can communicate with us through our dreams and subconscious, it is surprising, because this kind of stuff is just found out naturally when using science to explain certain anomalies - so when something comes up, and you are like, oh # that's a succubus!

It was a surprise! Because you weren't trying to find out about succubi, that would be what I would call a bad idea - but running into a phenomenon that you are then able to identify through ancient lore, with the help of other awesome people, after running into it and needing a way to explain it is different.

I think most people's problem when it comes to this is, definitely even Atheists is, they never take the jump and flat out assume that God and spirituality don't exist - they still believe in them.

If they took the jump, they might start to ask themselves things like, wait a minute, why do religions form so resiliently if there's no God? Let's find out an alternate answer. What makes people band together? What does a God represent? It has to have some mechanics to it, as it is quite functional, even if it doesn't really exist, so what are they and how do they work?

Even if someone's out there making up the idea of a God so that others follow them, how is this possible? How can someone make something up that doesn't exist if we are bound only to the physical world? Even someone making up a God still presents an anomaly!

In fact, are they actually making it up, or are they channeling something that already exists in another realm and think they are making it up? And if that is the case, doesn't that mean the particular God they worship does exist?

That is what I have been finding out lately. It has turned out that some of the entities that are showing up in the dreams of me and others have the same names as ones that were already described in ancient lore, and show the same behavioral traits of different spirits classified in ancient lore.

reply to post by Bedlam


By that literal definition of the physical processes that happen to our bodies upon death, the reality seems to be..our energy is transferred alright...only not into an etheral, airy spirit body, able to interact with the Universe...but into...bugs, worms and bacteria.

Not as touchy-feely an idea is it.