Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife

reply to post by undo


I watched all five videos and I think these savants process data a different way, but I think the process is purely a physical brain function. As evidenced with the Japanese children learning to calculate using the abacus, then without it, but still visualizing it; a process, a method.

If our souls are holograms, it would allow for immortality. There is only a shedding of the mortal coil. The body is the hardware, the Soul is the software. A hologram is light information. If the Universe is like a large computer, then afterlife Starwalking (Egyptian belief) is a real possibility.

nerbot
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.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


I agree.

I've actually went into a debate about this with a new ager some time ago. I was trying to demonstrated that the universe still exists even if you're not observing it.

Personally I started thinking along similar lines when I learned of the scientific belief in wave-particle duality. The sheer act of something changing its behavior based on whether or not it is being observed simply astounded me. And I reasoned that if that is accurate, then consciousness must be something much greater than what science has always stated it to be. It must be almost like a living thing, permeating the universe in a sense.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

Are you also amazed that when you throw a baseball with a clockwise spin it curves one way and with a counterclockwise spin it curves the other way? Because it's really not that amazing the behavior of the baseball changes when we do something different to it.

Likewise, we are doing something different to the photon when it behaves differently in the double slit experiment. We are not just observing it, we are affecting it no less than we affect a baseball by putting spin on the baseball. It has nothing to do with consciousness in the case of the baseball or the double slit experiment, though that's a popular misunderstanding.

reply to post by 0bserver1


What if the consciousness is within the energy of us and not the brain?
My computer science teacher who also worked for NASA once told me that we are energy and that can't die. It goes on to somewhere else.
The body is just a shell that houses the energy imo.

reply to post by Staroth


That's like saying that when a matchstick combusts it lives on in the afterlife because energy cannot be destroyed, only converted. Sure, the energy isn't destroyed but the matchstick itself no longer exists in any recognizable or useful form as a matchstick.

reply to post by Staroth


I Think that might be true , from the moment we're born until we die we ask ourself that question of when we die we become that energy that is in everything. I do believe this may be so.. But I also think when the time comes I would doubt that knowledge because of fear leaving everything behind. But for now it's the only way to know if it's true..

If science as they claim they do , find the truth behind life and dead , we I think always ask ourselfs on that last breath, I hope their right.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

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.

But can it not be rejected by the scientific community because it would uprise or stir the mass population to do things they normally wouldn't do because of death? Or couldn't it be that other religious believe systems could largely demonstrate this idea or theory this man claims he has the proof for it?

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 .

As with your short-sighted logic / lack of imagination in the other thread, you are doing exactly the same here.


You are assuming that there is no yet-undiscovered mechanism by which a consciousness could exist without a brain. i.e., purely materialistic viewpoint. I say "short-sighted" and not just "lack of imagination" (though both are true) because it should be quite obvious that were life to exist after death, that it would require some form other than the physical body-- which very obviously decays.

No one is missing, or ignoring the fact that the brain decays. YOU are missing the fact that many people do not see this as a problem for the existence of an afterlife.

reply to post by 0bserver1


The problem is . . . he doesn't have "proof". It's nothing more than an idea. It's not even a hypothesis, as it isn't based on evidence. Biocentric Universe is nothing more than a metaphor, a philosophical concept using modern science to justify dualism.

If Lanza had proof, it would be the biggest story the world has ever seen and he would be in possession of a Nobel Prize. This isn't a new philosophy. Lanza has been preaching/promoting Biocentrism since 2007. At the time of his first article, he said he planned to publish his "findings" in peer-reviewed journals. To date, he has not. However, he did write a book to capitalize on those gullible enough to buy into his dualistic philosophy.

The reason he hasn't published anything is because he has performed no research, beyond coming up with a cool story, to back his claims. The reason no research has been done is because the idea is not testable or falsifiable. Right now you can put this in the realm of psuedoscience. You can tell psuedoscience from real science because they do their work in articles, webblogs, and YouTube clips, as opposed to labs and peer-reviewed journals.

While an interesting philosophy, until he can produce any evidence at all to back any of it, it is just a story that comes from a creative mind.

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 . ?

Again, more terrible assumptions based on other terrible assumptions, based on lack of ability to reason beyond your own beliefs / perspective.

How many ghosts there should be on the planet? Says who? If there is a plane of existence after death, why do you assume it has to be tied to this planet? (How extraordinarily short-sighted.) Why not a heaven / hell / purgatory type place? Why do you assume "ghosts" (which you seem to not believe in) are actually discarnate humans? Hollywood? You think that's where we all get our beliefs? Maybe "ghosts" and hauntings are not what people think at all, and are not really discarnate humans. Maybe they're not real at all.

Or maybe they are humans, after death. But why does that mean the world has to fill up with them? Maybe they only stick around for a set time. Or until some given event. Or until they can "work things through."


Maybe none of that is true.


Wouldn't we be receiving guidance? Another assumption. Based on...? Why assume, if there is an afterlife, that they can communicate with us? That's a hell of a big assumption, for one to not even realize they're making.


If they could communicate to us, why assume they know how to cure cancer? Do YOU know how to cure cancer? Well, what if you die? Will you suddenly know, then? lol Do you think you'll suddenly become a genius mega-doctor? A god? Learn all the secrets of the universe? Assumption. Assumption. Assumption.


Okay, let's assume... they can communicate, and they suddenly know all the secrets. Maybe by learning all the secrets to life, they suddenly realize the purpose and meaning of all human experiences, including cancer. And suddenly realizing what's what, they realize (with their greater perspective) that they would be doing a dis-service to humanity by not letting us work through it, ourselves. This is, of course, speculation also. But I'm just trying to show you how narrow and assumptive your perspective is. You packed megatons worth of assumption into just a few sentences.

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.

The ability to make something conceivable doesn't provide evidence to it's possibility. Reality is what determines possibility. I can dream, every night, that I fly (as many do) . . . that doesn't mean it's possible. It's not assuming when reality shows that it is not possible.

If consciousness is a possibility, please define it. Not in some flowery metaphor, but in physical terms. 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.

For further explanation of the reasons why we should have no reason to "assume" duality, see my post here:
previous post page 4

solomons path
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.

Yes, I assert those are assumptions, however that is not even remotely analogous to what I was talking to the other member about. He assumed that IF ghosts do exist that:


A- The world would be "filled"" with them

B- That, indeed, they must be tied to the material world

C- That the phenomenon called "ghosts" do, indeed represent discarnate human entities

D- That these discarnate entities should be able to communicate with us.

E- That these discarnate humans must necessarily possess some knowledge which we don't, that they could then share.


All of these things were assumed in the other member's speculation. And that has nothing to do with the type of assumption you're talking about, which is wholly different.


And as far as that goes, as I said, I do assert that those are assumptions. Facts, based on the available evidence? What evidence? Can you prove, 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt that these things do not exist? I don't think you can. And none of this "the burden of proof should be on you, not me," hogwash (and yes, that too-common attitude is a big steaming pile of it.) If you are asserting, with 100% certainty: "I am certain those things do not exist," you are making a positive claim. And I suggest that anyone making an assertive, confident, positive claim should be able to (and have the burden to) back it up with proof, regardless of whether that statement is about the existence, or non-existence of a thing.


As far as Santa and the Easter Bunny, it is common knowledge among adults that those are just stories told to children for amusement, and this is their origin. I accept that as true, because I choose to. It makes sense to me, and seems to be true. That does not mean it's proven true. I've not seen every square inch of existence, and for all I know, there's a big fat easter bunny hiding out somewhere. No, I don't really think this. But neither one of us can conclusively prove it's not true.



And again, just to be quite clear, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, or that other guy's assumptions, and I honestly have no idea why you brought this up, unless you just thought it would be fun to debate the idea...or... something...

solomons path
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.

And how in the world can you possibly know that this is not true, or that this can not exist? Prove it.

Or are you just assuming that such a thing can not exist, because you can't possibly conceive of how, with your current understanding of the universe?

Not being able to conceive a thing, is not the same thing as the impossibility of that thing.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


It cannot be explained. Even as pure consciousness, without a body to animate, it can only be accepted - not explained.

Liken it to 'Infinite':- Infinite cannot be explained, there are only those who cannot accept/understand it and those who can. Those who understand already, and have accepted, know there isn't a way of explaining Infinite because of the absence of something to explain. It is either acceptable or not acceptable; fully dependent on you.
(I can give an example to the best of my ability, if you want, of how Infinite IS but if you cannot accept it then it becomes un-explainable as it is unfathomable for you).

People need to refrain from, repeatedly, asking questions that don't have answers (I understand the question has to be asked in the first place to not find an answer, that's why I said repeatedly). I know by nature we are curious but we'll drive ourselves totally mental trying to figure some things out... Science has limits as do religious, and esoteric teachings. Why would it be that over the last 50,000 years of upright walking "intelligent" beings on Earth these questions haven't been answered?!

If the hypothesis that the more intelligent people on Earth are more advanced souls, that have cycled a few thousand lifetimes already, then why can they not explain everything, collectively? Because even experiencing multiple lifetimes over a Trillion years will not yield an answer when one doesn't exist.

reply to post by iwilliam


All you have done is turned the tables, which is a common tactic by those that tell fantastical stories . . . your argument is absurd.

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.

Whether the topic is ghosts, consciousness, or in the OP's case Biocentrism, to claim something is possible therefore should be given equal weight as evidence is foolish.

It is not the skeptic's job to disprove anything that has no evidence to support it. If there is no evidence than the assumption is being made by those that choose to believe despite the lack of evidence. Just saying something is an assumption because you choose to give weight to ideas without evidence that others require doesn't make it so. Until there is evidence to support the existence of anything, the logical position to hold is that it does not. This is not assumption this is fact based on best available evidence.

While keeping an open mind is important, until there is evidence to support an idea it is just that, an idea. And yes, conceivablity is not evidence for possibility.

Burden of Proof fallacy
Philosophic Burden of Proof

ETA: I can conceive of ghosts, the soul, or consciousness . . . everyone can because we all have imaginations. However, the ability to conceive of something doesn't equate to possibility, again. Until there is evidence to support the contrary, it makes no sense to assume that anything created out of the human mind should or could exist (i.e. a psychic walrus that carries the earth around the sun, or ghosts, or the intelligent consciousness of the universal ether).

reply to post by solomons path


what are the nuts and bolts of the theory you are arguing against? i mean, what foundation are they building upon? quantum theory? i don't want to hear about your opinion of the later construction built upon it, but rather, what was the foundation of the theory you are debating?

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?

That's a very good explanation of the dual nature of light Undo.

However, recording need not be a "conscious action."

The recording device can be programmed to turn on and off randomly in a way that no person actually knows when it is recording.

The photons still resolve into particles if you do that.

Lastly (and I'm not specifically addressing you here Undo,) what about the existence of the universe prior to the evolution of the conscious mind? You know, before our sun even formed.

How can we explain that if our minds "create" the universe?

Harte