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 physics proves that there IS an afterlife

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   

EnemyOfTheSane
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 .


The idea is that consciousness is independent of the brain, meaning you do not need a brain to be conscious. The brain serves as a control deck for consciousness, but without consciousness the body is a vegetable.

The idea that consciousness is independent of the brain is often backed by first hand accounts of awareness in a comatose state; i.e. a person who has been anesthetized prior to a major surgery may have an out of body experience and witness doctors operating on him or her.

Existence is awareness; to think is to exist. Hence, the question becomes whether one needs a brain to think. Venturing further down the rabbit hole, the nature of thought is brought into question: what is thought, what is it to think? Can we think without language? Once a fetus has developed consciousness, how does it think? Generally, we think with what we know. Is thought, and thus awareness, possible with knowledge of nothing?

There is more to life than we can possible comprehend at this stage of our existence as a species. To deny, or claim, anything without solid proof to back it up is naivety at best.




posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
While it's nice that Lanza can think out of the box, if he had any real evidence for his hypothesis (or "proof" as the OP states), he would be publishing his work in a journal. He would then pack his bags to go pick up his Nobel Prize.

If consciousness (or the soul) is a non-physical entity then what allows it to "think" . . . or exhibit intelligence. What processes does it use to accomplish transmission of knowledge? How is it measured?

We know that if a brain is damaged the functions located in that portion of the brain cease (or are diminished). Why then, if one loses their vision due to damage, does the person lose the ability to see? If there was a separate entity (consciousness or soul) that had the ability to operate outside of the physical matter or the brain . . . why does it not compensate for the actual physical matter that was damaged? You could take away functions, piece by piece damaging the brain, and yet the person would lose those functions forever. If we took away the entire brain . . . the person would enter into a perceptual black hole. No secondary immaterial backup systems kick in to guide that person through the world.

So where is evidence of this dual non-physical intelligence? NDE or any other perceived non-physical sensations have one thing in common . . . every person that has them must have a physical brain.

In the case of Lanza's imagineering . . . The ability to conceive something is not evidence that it is possible. When one dreams, they conceive all sorts of impossible things, such as the ability to fly or stop time around you. However, the apparent inconceivability is not evidence of logical possibility . . . reality and the material world dictate what is possible.

The greater the claim . . . the greater the burden of proof. Lanza provides none, nor has any other dualistic thinker outside of thought experiments.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:35 AM
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?


I'm glad somebody took the time to look at the most compelling part of his theory before trying to brush it under the carpet.

I think this is fascinating and a truely remarkable expermiment.

Like my grandparents always said to me; If you have a positive atitude then good things will come. If you have a negative atitude then life can be difficult because you make it difficult for yourself. Sort of fits in nicely with this mans theory of our conciousness playing a bigger role in how our lives and/or the universe around you unfolds.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   

MysterX
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.




I'm pretty sure the bugs, coyotes, worms and bacteria are pretty happy about it - it's a nice meal.

There's also some IR emission, I suppose, at least at first, until you cool down. After that, it's all ooze and maggots.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   

angryhulk

Like my grandparents always said to me; If you have a positive atitude then good things will come. If you have a negative atitude then life can be difficult because you make it difficult for yourself. Sort of fits in nicely with this mans theory of our conciousness playing a bigger role in how our lives and/or the universe around you unfolds.


Or, it's that people prefer to interact with a cheerful, pleasant person. Combined with a nice dose of confirmation bias, Bob's your uncle.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


I bet it's possible, using quantum physics, to show that quantum physics doesn't exist...lol



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

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.

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.



Have we discovered all the forms of energy that exist? I think not. On several occasions, while experimenting with transendental meditation, I believe my spirit body left my physical body and had free reign throughout the cosmos (imagination you say? who can say?). So, upon the death of the physical body and the spirit body thus being freed (feelings and memories shed), could not this spirit body merge (then transform) with other energies (collective consciousness?), both realized and not?


edit on 16-11-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

undo
is there anyway to explain this outside of the idea that the conscious action of recording data, causes the data to become 3d reality?
There is mass confusion about the double slit experiment, so don't feel like you are the only one who has been led down the path of excessive meadow patty fertilizer by pseudoscience explanations like "What the bleep do we know?" etc, to lead you to a false conclusion like that. I made this thread for you and all the other confused people:

The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"


0bserver1
Robert Lanza claims the theory of biocentrism says death is an illusion
The end of that statement is a key to my scientific hypothesis, which is that many humans have difficulty coping with the idea of the end of their own existence. In the past they would make up any fairy tale to explain why their existence wouldn't end. Now fairy tales are out of favor and people need "scientific" reason to believe something, so along comes Lanza and comes up with a scientific looking replacement for the old fairy-tales, but it's not really scientific because real science is published in scientific papers and what's cited in the OP is a popular book, not a scientific paper, so he didn't prove anything.


Bedlam
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.
You mean that's what's going to happen to you and me because that is the scientifically supported logical explanation for the result of death. But all the people who read Lanza's book and click their heels together three times and say "there's no place like home" won't die and certainly won't have worms crawling on them, because, well that's just gross and saying we can live forever just sounds a whole lot better. In one sense, Lanza may have a point that people do create a mental fantasy about eternal life and that can become their perceived reality, at least the thought that they won't really die. So that much of Lanza's idea I can buy into. But, it's a delusion, and the people who think they won't really die will die like everybody else and they will ignore your post to the contrary because they've established their own fantasy just like Lanza said they could.


DestroyDestroyDestroy
The idea that consciousness is independent of the brain is often backed by first hand accounts of awareness in a comatose state; i.e. a person who has been anesthetized prior to a major surgery may have an out of body experience and witness doctors operating on him or her.
And as much as we would all like to believe this, there are also scientific explanations for these experiences which have nothing to do with consciousness outside the brain, but we prefer to dismiss those because among other reasons, we fear death and don't want to think our consciousness dies when we die.
edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

NorEaster
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.
That gave me a chuckle to imply that 2010 was old. His ideas are much much older and more primitive than that, some preceding the advent of science, which even Deepak Chopra's glowing review admitted:

Biocentrism

Indian physician and writer Deepak Chopra stated that “Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world.
Don't forget some "ancient wisdom traditions" had virgins being sacrificed to appease the rain gods to make it rain, so just because something was believed in ancient wisdom traditions doesn't mean they are good ideas. In fact the bad ideas outnumbered the good ideas, so saying it's based on "ancient wisdom" is more of a negative than a positive despite Chopra's effort to put a positive spin on it though new agers love woo statements like that so it should help sell the book.


Biocentrism argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson.[6] He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.
That idea was around in primitive times but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny today. Just one example of that is, look at the instruments we have built to look at the universe in parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans have no ability to perceive (radio, microwave, infrared, x-ray, gamma ray). The idea that our perception is based on animal observation through senses, like visible light may have actually once been true, but it's far from true now, as is Lanza's hypothesis.
edit on 16-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

undo
reply to post by InTheLight
 


what i found interesting was how it said, these events were in suspended animation, existing and not-existing at the same time. they were here, there, everywhere. but doing much of nothing till they were recorded. so you record the data, draw conclusions and record those, and move forward in sort of incremental revelation, if you will. the question you seem to be asking is, can we take the random chaotic mush of probabilites and erect our own reality?


Perhaps all the actions of the experiement (waves) interracted, then collapsed into a specific form (reality) of information that we could identify or learn?




posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

You mean that's what's going to happen to you and me because that is the scientifically supported logical explanation for the result of death...and the people who think they won't really die will die like everybody else and they will ignore your post to the contrary because they've established their own fantasy just like Lanza said they could.


Don't get me wrong - I'd like to discover that you DO live forever in happy land. That would ROCK. Not that I would get there anyway, I've been a bad monkey this time around and if it's all true, then plenty of spirits are queueing up with brass knucks to greet me on the other side.


I just don't buy the New Agey/Theosophic line. Maybe there's something that no-one's figured out yet, and when they do, well, we really WILL have a "Spiricom" and we'll all find out what awaits. That could be really good or really bad, depending.

O'course, being Irish mostly, I have had the occasional odd thing happen along the lines of dead people. But there's not enough info, and sadly, the plural of anecdote isn't data. Alas.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


that's why i said, whatever the recording device is doing to collapse the wave function (or probability distribution), the brain must work in a similar manner. i don't suggest that it's literally aware it's being recorded and neither does the guy in the video. he says "as if it were aware it was being watched". what's really happening sounds like its specific to things that record and store data



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 





I just don't buy the New Agey/Theosophic line.


i think quantum physics predated theosophy.
so do you believe quantum physics is just a religion?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

undo
reply to post by Bedlam
 





I just don't buy the New Agey/Theosophic line.


i think quantum physics predated theosophy.
so do you believe quantum physics is just a religion?


It existed whether we knew it or not, so in THAT sense it's true that it predates theosophy, but Blavatsky's con job definitely came before Planck started ruminating about black body radiation.

She arrogated physics terms to her pseudo-religion in order to give it panache, since science was the news story of the day. Thus do you get babble about vibration, fields, energy and whatnot from woo artists to this day.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


i'm still unclear on your position regarding quantum physics.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
For those of you who argue that the brain decays at death and, therefore, there can be no possibility of survival...you might be correct.

However...

That doesn't necessarily mean there is no life after death, only that this life you've got now will be completely expunged.

So, exactly the same scenario, presumably, as before you were conceived - nothingness.

And yet here you are - just like that.

Created from nothing!

How did that happen?

And having happened once, how can you be sure it wont happen again at some point in the infinitude of the universe/s?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
i have a theory regarding daniel tammet, a savant who sees numbers as shapes and colors and they have emotions associated with them as well. he had severe seizures when he was very young which resulted in this amazing savant ability. my theory is that his brain rewired itself when he seized one time too many, but since he was so young, the rewiring connected him to some portion of his dna designed specifically for recording data. normally, there's a different filtering system the brain uses to calculate and retrieve data than the one daniel has. what i found particularly interesting is the description of how he does amazing math calculations: he sees a 3d landscape in his mind, and he moves over that landscape and reads the shapes from it. each shape represents a number. when i saw his drawings, i was shocked how much they looked like cell tissues and dna. watch the video series
www.youtube.com...

the reason i bring this up is, i believe he is accessing a massive database, written right into his dna. the question is whether that database is literally present in his own dna or if he is connecting remotely or interdimensionally, to a dna database that ignores things like time constraints. the reason i say this is the speed at which he learns new things and retrieves them, is almost like he is retrieving it from a huge library of stored info that he has a constant connection to.

later in the video there's a guy who was hit in the head with a baseball as a kid, and now he can remember the weather for any day of the year. same situation - accessing a database of information that he may have not known otherwise, but now can access and list it right off, the day, the month and the weather for that day.


i brought all that up to say this: what if we are quantumly entangled to our own interdimensional database, that stores our information and shares it with anyone else who is connected to the database, but most humans don't access that part of the brain unless the brain is re-routed neurologically

watch the videos. there's 5 in all and it is well worth it
www.youtube.com...

edit on 16-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The double slit experiment is very misleading.

I originally thought it was an experiment involving two women. You can imagine my disappointment.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
It seems to me that the brain is just a conduit for consciousness in the physical realm whereas it's not needed in the spiritual realm.

Energy transforms.

I appreciate the efforts OP, however there are many that won't believe until they experience the afterlife them self or experience a deceased loved one coming to them to tell them there is life after death of the physical body.

S&F for the subject and effort!



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Jefferton
One man's opinion does not equal proof.

Next.

Tell that to Albert einstein



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join