It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by 0bserver1
I bet it's possible, using quantum physics, to show that quantum physics doesn't exist...lol
Or using quantium physics may lead to an accidental discovery... for instance... when the periodic table was first created, it was surmised there were many elements which were to be discovered.. loe and behold they were eventually, but a lot of the later ones had to be lab created. Had the periodic table not been produced we might not have been interested in doing so.
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.
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 .
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 . ?
reply to post by iwilliam
It's not "assuming" if there is no evidence to support the idea.
Is it "assuming" to say that fairies, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny do not exist? No, it's stating a fact based on the available evidence, just like the soul or consciousness.
reply to post by iwilliam
Something cannot exist to have physical properties, such as intelligence, ability to hold knowledge, foresight, and yet still be an immaterial entity. What are the processes that allow this property to actually think? What mechanisms are used? How do we quantify its abilities? Where exactly is this knowledge stored and what medium is used? If it has physical abilities, we should be able to define the processes used perform these abilities.
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
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?