Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quantum Physics and the Afterlife?

Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."

Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:02:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
None of this makes sense. So what if energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Mere "energy" is not what makes up our conscious identity.

Although I believe in an Afterlife (to me, the alternative is ridiculous), I don't do so for any of the reasons stated in the article.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:05:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's not to say that I think our soul is not energy, but rather, that it takes a specific form which need not be preserved by the law of conservation of mass.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:07:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think our "self" or "ego" survives death, I think that conscious content just gets returned to the universal consciousness.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:31:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:05:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
That's not to say that I think our soul is not energy, but rather, that it takes a specific form which need not be preserved by the law of conservation of mass.

What specific form?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:34:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:31:54 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:05:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
That's not to say that I think our soul is not energy, but rather, that it takes a specific form which need not be preserved by the law of conservation of mass.

What specific form?

It depends on what soul we're talking about lol.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:07:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't think our "self" or "ego" survives death, I think that conscious content just gets returned to the universal consciousness.

And what do you believe happens after the content conscious returns to the universe? Do you think it cab be redistributed (ex: reincarnation)?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:35:27 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:07:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't think our "self" or "ego" survives death, I think that conscious content just gets returned to the universal consciousness.

And what do you believe happens after the content conscious returns to the universe? Do you think it cab be redistributed (ex: reincarnation)?

Good question. I suppose there is only one way to find out, but I prefer to prolong that process.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.

What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Drew
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.

Well, the physical world being a digital simulation explains more with less Ad Hoc postulates and bare facts without explanation. Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental. Our minds are the only thing we know of that don't share properties with the physical (assuming the physical has non-mental properties for the sake of argument) and processes information.


What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:07:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.

Well, the physical world being a digital simulation explains more with less Ad Hoc postulates and bare facts without explanation. Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental. Our minds are the only thing we know of that don't share properties with the physical (assuming the physical has non-mental properties for the sake of argument) and processes information.


What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew

Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that. It is fully physical. Including all that Dark Energy that we just fairly recently discovered. (We just are not quite sure what type of physical particles it is comprised of. Yet.) LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:13:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You know what?

I have just come to the conclusion I was selling myself short in my OP.

My grasp of Computer Science and of the human mind are pretty damn good. And since this Thread's topic IS pure speculation and NOT current scientific fact--I do believe I will toss in my dos centavos, now and again. LOL

As...in retrospect I think I am well aware of your OP postulate, as it is hardly a new one. I am also aware of the vast differences between our organic, 3-lb. brains and an electronic calculating device that is but a tool.

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:58:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:07:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.

Well, the physical world being a digital simulation explains more with less Ad Hoc postulates and bare facts without explanation. Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental. Our minds are the only thing we know of that don't share properties with the physical (assuming the physical has non-mental properties for the sake of argument) and processes information.


What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew


Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

No, it really doesn't.


I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

I have no idea what that is, perhaps I will google it.


But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that.

This idea is taken very seriously in physics.

"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom " at a very deep bottom, in most instances " an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this in a participatory universe." - John Wheeler

There are many reasons to believe this is the case. The Holographic principle for one, but that by itself wouldn't be enough. We would need many bodies of evidence. Another one would be that if reality is virtual then reality should be pixelated; the existence of Planck Units proves this. If we assume the universe is physical then mass, energy, time and space are quantized at the Planck level for no reason. But virtual reality explains this because the universe is a digital system, entailing mass, energy, time and space are necessarily quantized. If reality is physical, then then Relativity tells us a universal speed limit exists, but we have no underlining reason for why reality would have to be that way . But virtual realities have a processing rate, entailing a necessary speed limit! Meaning that a virtual reality explains the universal speed limit better than a physical one. If reality is virtual then the frame rate can drop, this would explain why time dilates. If the universe is physical then we have no reason for why time dilates according to Relativity as it does. We know that a processing gradient bends transmissions in a virtual reality, this would explain why space curves around a massive body as we observe. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why reality is the way that way. State transmissions resemble quantum tunneling perfectly. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why the world of quantum mechanics includes a tunneling process the way it does. A virtual reality explains reality way better than the idea it is a physical reality. There are so many things that cannot be explained if reality is physical; I could literally keep going but you get the picture.

It is fully physical.

That idea does explain reality sufficiently as I have proven.

Including all that Dark Energy that we just fairly recently discovered. (We just are not quite sure what type of physical particles it is comprised of. Yet.) LOL

Dark Energy would be informational.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:05:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:58:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:07:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.

Well, the physical world being a digital simulation explains more with less Ad Hoc postulates and bare facts without explanation. Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental. Our minds are the only thing we know of that don't share properties with the physical (assuming the physical has non-mental properties for the sake of argument) and processes information.


What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew


Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

No, it really doesn't.


I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

I have no idea what that is, perhaps I will google it.


But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that.

This idea is taken very seriously in physics.

"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom " at a very deep bottom, in most instances " an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this in a participatory universe." - John Wheeler

There are many reasons to believe this is the case. The Holographic principle for one, but that by itself wouldn't be enough. We would need many bodies of evidence. Another one would be that if reality is virtual then reality should be pixelated; the existence of Planck Units proves this. If we assume the universe is physical then mass, energy, time and space are quantized at the Planck level for no reason. But virtual reality explains this because the universe is a digital system, entailing mass, energy, time and space are necessarily quantized. If reality is physical, then then Relativity tells us a universal speed limit exists, but we have no underlining reason for why reality would have to be that way . But virtual realities have a processing rate, entailing a necessary speed limit! Meaning that a virtual reality explains the universal speed limit better than a physical one. If reality is virtual then the frame rate can drop, this would explain why time dilates. If the universe is physical then we have no reason for why time dilates according to Relativity as it does. We know that a processing gradient bends transmissions in a virtual reality, this would explain why space curves around a massive body as we observe. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why reality is the way that way. State transmissions resemble quantum tunneling perfectly. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why the world of quantum mechanics includes a tunneling process the way it does. A virtual reality explains reality way better than the idea it is a physical reality. There are so many things that cannot be explained if reality is physical; I could literally keep going but you get the picture.


It is fully physical.

That idea does explain reality sufficiently as I have proven.

Including all that Dark Energy that we just fairly recently discovered. (We just are not quite sure what type of physical particles it is comprised of. Yet.) LOL

Dark Energy would be informational.

"This idea is taken seriously in physics?"

Really? I read about physics all the time and have never seen it taken seriously. Perhaps you would care to provide a link? One that is not merely posing a hypothesis, but shows some "serious" evidence?

Same thing for your claim that Dark Energy is "informational." Link, please? I find that pure conjecture at best--if not ludicrous.

Thanks. I will be eagerly awaiting your links.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.

What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.


Hmm...I agree.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Drew

;)
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:26:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:39:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:35:27 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:07:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I don't think our "self" or "ego" survives death, I think that conscious content just gets returned to the universal consciousness.

And what do you believe happens after the content conscious returns to the universe? Do you think it cab be redistributed (ex: reincarnation)?

Good question. I suppose there is only one way to find out, but I prefer to prolong that process.

Agreed.
But if reincarnation is real, who is to say we haven't lived before and our memory of past life does not transfer...thus this being the only life we are aware of.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:36:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:05:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:58:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:07:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.




What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew


Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

No, it really doesn't.


I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

I have no idea what that is, perhaps I will google it.


But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that.

This idea is taken very seriously in physics.



There are many reasons to believe this is the case. The Holographic principle for one, but that by itself wouldn't be enough. We would need many bodies of evidence. Another one would be that if reality is virtual then reality should be pixelated; the existence of Planck Units proves this. If we assume the universe is physical then mass, energy, time and space are quantized at the Planck level for no reason. But virtual reality explains this because the universe is a digital system, entailing mass, energy, time and space are necessarily quantized. If reality is physical, then then Relativity tells us a universal speed limit exists, but we have no underlining reason for why reality would have to be that way . But virtual realities have a processing rate, entailing a necessary speed limit! Meaning that a virtual reality explains the universal speed limit better than a physical one. If reality is virtual then the frame rate can drop, this would explain why time dilates. If the universe is physical then we have no reason for why time dilates according to Relativity as it does. We know that a processing gradient bends transmissions in a virtual reality, this would explain why space curves around a massive body as we observe. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why reality is the way that way. State transmissions resemble quantum tunneling perfectly. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why the world of quantum mechanics includes a tunneling process the way it does. A virtual reality explains reality way better than the idea it is a physical reality. There are so many things that cannot be explained if reality is physical; I could literally keep going but you get the picture.


It is fully physical.

That idea does explain reality sufficiently as I have proven.

Including all that Dark Energy that we just fairly recently discovered. (We just are not quite sure what type of physical particles it is comprised of. Yet.) LOL

Dark Energy would be informational.

"This idea is taken seriously in physics?"

Really? I read about physics all the time and have never seen it taken seriously.

That is pretty embarrassing then. John Wheeler is only one of the most influential physicists who lived. Also, Leonard Susskind is a physicist who beat Stephen Hawking in long debate regarding black holes (to which Hawking admitted defeat); he has the same idea as me that the universe as a hologram explains reality way better than a physical world (I attached a video). Here is an article about it [http://www.universetoday.com...].

Perhaps you would care to provide a link? One that is not merely posing a hypothesis, but shows some "serious" evidence?

If the hypothesis is false then you have to explain all my points away as huge coincidences. The odds of all those things taken as a whole being a coincidence is very slim. Here is more on the subject [http://brianwhitworth.com...]. There is a difference between merely positing a hypothesis, and positing one that actually explains reality better and has practical use.


Same thing for your claim that Dark Energy is "informational." Link, please? I find that pure conjecture at best--if not ludicrous.

Thanks. I will be eagerly awaiting your links.

If reality is virtual then this simply follows.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:39:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:05:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:58:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:07:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.

Well, the physical world being a digital simulation explains more with less Ad Hoc postulates and bare facts without explanation. Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental. Our minds are the only thing we know of that don't share properties with the physical (assuming the physical has non-mental properties for the sake of argument) and processes information.


What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew


Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

No, it really doesn't.


I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

I have no idea what that is, perhaps I will google it.


But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that.

This idea is taken very seriously in physics.

"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom " at a very deep bottom, in most instances " an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this in a participatory universe." - John Wheeler

There are many reasons to believe this is the case. The Holographic principle for one, but that by itself wouldn't be enough. We would need many bodies of evidence. Another one would be that if reality is virtual then reality should be pixelated; the existence of Planck Units proves this. If we assume the universe is physical then mass, energy, time and space are quantized at the Planck level for no reason. But virtual reality explains this because the universe is a digital system, entailing mass, energy, time and space are necessarily quantized. If reality is physical, then then Relativity tells us a universal speed limit exists, but we have no underlining reason for why reality would have to be that way . But virtual realities have a processing rate, entailing a necessary speed limit! Meaning that a virtual reality explains the universal speed limit better than a physical one. If reality is virtual then the frame rate can drop, this would explain why time dilates. If the universe is physical then we have no reason for why time dilates according to Relativity as it does. We know that a processing gradient bends transmissions in a virtual reality, this would explain why space curves around a massive body as we observe. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why reality is the way that way. State transmissions resemble quantum tunneling perfectly. If reality is physical, we have no reason for why the world of quantum mechanics includes a tunneling process the way it does. A virtual reality explains reality way better than the idea it is a physical reality. There are so many things that cannot be explained if reality is physical; I could literally keep going but you get the picture.


It is fully physical.

That idea does explain reality sufficiently as I have proven.

Including all that Dark Energy that we just fairly recently discovered. (We just are not quite sure what type of physical particles it is comprised of. Yet.) LOL

Dark Energy would be informational.

"This idea is taken seriously in physics?"



Thanks. I will be eagerly awaiting your links.

Sorry, I forgot the video.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:45:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:02:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
None of this makes sense. So what if energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Mere "energy" is not what makes up our conscious identity.

Although I believe in an Afterlife (to me, the alternative is ridiculous), I don't do so for any of the reasons stated in the article.

What's ridiculous about non-existence? .... you haven't existed for 13 or 14 billion years. Why is it suddenly nonsense in this tiny frame we've been given to even ponder such a question?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:46:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:05:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:58:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:07:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL

He, really went of the reservation with his whole "Death is not real" thing. Of course it is. Go visit a cemetery. Or a morgue. LOL--are those stiffs just victims of their own lack of imagination?

I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.




What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew


Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

No, it really doesn't.


I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

I have no idea what that is, perhaps I will google it.


But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that.

This idea is taken very seriously in physics.



There are many reasons to believe this is the case. The Holographic principle for one, but that by itself wouldn't be enough. We would need many bodies of evidence. Another one would be that if reality is virtual then reality should be pixelated; the existence of Planck Units proves this. If we assume the universe is physical then mass, energy, time and space are quantized at the Planck level for no reason. But virtual reality explains this because the universe is a digital system, entailing mass, energy, time and space are necessarily quantized. If reality is physical, then then Relativity tells us a universal speed limit exists, but we have no underlining reason for
Really? I read about physics all the time and have never seen it taken seriously.

That is pretty embarrassing then. John Wheeler is only one of the most influential physicists who lived. Also, Leonard Susskind is a physicist who beat Stephen Hawking in long debate regarding black holes (to which Hawking admitted defeat); he has the same idea as me that the universe as a hologram explains reality way better than a physical world (I attached a video). Here is an article about it [http://www.universetoday.com...].

Perhaps you would care to provide a link? One that is not merely posing a hypothesis, but shows some "serious" evidence?

If the hypothesis is false then you have to explain all my points away as huge coincidences. The odds of all those things taken as a whole being a coincidence is very slim. Here is more on the subject [http://brianwhitworth.com...]. There is a difference between merely positing a hypothesis, and positing one that actually explains reality better and has practical use.


Same thing for your claim that Dark Energy is "informational." Link, please? I find that pure conjecture at best--if not ludicrous.

Thanks. I will be eagerly awaiting your links.

If reality is virtual then this simply follows.

LOL---that's a magazine article, bro. And it does not mention anything about it being "taken very seriously" as you originally claimed. How about a peer-reviewed paper?

Read any of Hawking's book. Like "A Brief History of Time." Nowhere in there is a theory of a Hologram of Virtual Universe. Rather, these guys simply speculate on it, like many other things, like M-Brane or String Theory or the Multi-Verse. Or "Super Symmetry."

But not a shred of proof. Ad not even one scientific experiment has ever shown a hint of it.

So..if you re-word your OP to say "this idea has been speculated upon" in physics, I will agree. But "taken seriously" by professional physicists and Cosmologists? No.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:46:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:05:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
That's not to say that I think our soul is not energy, but rather, that it takes a specific form which need not be preserved by the law of conservation of mass.

what is any of this based on?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:48:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:46:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:05:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
That's not to say that I think our soul is not energy, but rather, that it takes a specific form which need not be preserved by the law of conservation of mass.

what is any of this based on?

LOL--Not much. Mostly just some whimsical speculation.

Like it says here................https://briankoberlein.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 11:00:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:46:01 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:36:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:05:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:58:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:07:40 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:40:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:30:12 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:45:48 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 5:42:10 PM, Najs wrote:
Is it true or not that Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife? Dr. Robert Lanza (Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics) stated that it does. The scientific theory Biocentrism written in his book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe". But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...

"

"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL



I think not.

Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.




What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew


Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

No, it really doesn't.


I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

I have no idea what that is, perhaps I will google it.


But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that.

This idea is taken very seriously in physics.



There are many reasons to believe this is the case. The Holographic principle for one, but that by itself wouldn't be enough. We would need many bodies of evidence. Another one would be that if reality is virtual then reality should be pixelated; the existence of Planck Units proves this. If we assume the universe is physical then mass, energy, time and space are quantized at the Planck level for no reason. But virtual reality explains this because the universe is a digital system, entailing mass, energy, time and space are necessarily quantized. If reality is physical, then then Relativity tells us a universal speed limit exists, but we have no underlining reason for
Really? I read about physics all the time and have never seen it taken seriously.

That is pretty embarrassing then. John Wheeler is only one of the most influential physicists who lived. Also, Leonard Susskind is a physicist who beat Stephen Hawking in long debate regarding black holes (to which Hawking admitted defeat); he has the same idea as me that the universe as a hologram explains reality way better than a physical world (I attached a video). Here is an article about it [http://www.universetoday.com...].

Perhaps you would care to provide a link? One that is not merely posing a hypothesis, but shows some "serious" evidence?

If the hypothesis is false then you have to explain all my points away as huge coincidences. The odds of all those things taken as a whole being a coincidence is very slim. Here is more on the subject [http://brianwhitworth.com...]. There is a difference between merely positing a hypothesis, and positing one that actually explains reality better and has practical use.


Same thing for your claim that Dark Energy is "informational." Link, please? I find that pure conjecture at best--if not ludicrous.

Thanks. I will be eagerly awaiting your links.

If reality is virtual then this simply follows.

LOL---that's a magazine article, bro. And it does not mention anything about it being "taken very seriously" as you originally claimed. How about a peer-reviewed paper?

Here is a peer-reviewed paper [http://arxiv.org...].

Read any of Hawking's book. Like "A Brief History of Time." Nowhere in there is a theory of a Hologram of Virtual Universe.

Because he doesn't believe that hypothesis. Leonard Susskind does (the one who proved Hawking wrong about information regarding black holes).

Rather, these guys simply speculate on it, like many other things, like M-Brane or String Theory or the Multi-Verse. Or "Super Symmetry."

Again you dodge all the points I made. Those speculations you mention aren't nearly as strong as the case for digital physics.


But not a shred of proof. Ad not even one scientific experiment has ever shown a hint of it.

Again, the if the hypothesis is false you have to explain away all the points I made as coincidences. Since that is unlikely, it follows that the hypothesis is most likely true based on what we know about the world.


So..if you re-word your OP to say "this idea has been speculated upon" in physics, I will agree. But "taken seriously" by professional physicists and Cosmologists? No.

So John Wheeler and Leonard Susskind weren't/ aren't professional physicists? LMAO Nice one, they are both strong advocates of the theory. I'm sure I could find many more.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 11:00:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:45:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/3/2015 8:02:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
None of this makes sense. So what if energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Mere "energy" is not what makes up our conscious identity.

Although I believe in an Afterlife (to me, the alternative is ridiculous), I don't do so for any of the reasons stated in the article.

What's ridiculous about non-existence? .... you haven't existed for 13 or 14 billion years. Why is it suddenly nonsense in this tiny frame we've been given to even ponder such a question?

The idea that the brain I currently possess is the only thing that will ever recognize itself as being "me" (when there are countless other configurations that could also do so) seems to me very silly. We're talking about the entirety of existence, here. Everything that will ever happen. Add to that the fact that I think existence - rather than being an impersonal "computer" which hurtles along the dimension of time like a runaway locomotive - is a self-refining entity which seeks to maximize global utility. It seems very likely that intelligent life would be included in this feedback process.
Tribschen
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:38:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
""Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling " the "Who am I?"- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn"t go away at death. "

The energy isn't any more alive than the energy I produce when I push a box across the floor.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:28:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@Rational_Thinker9119

Thanks for your post of the links and for sharing your view on John Wheeler and Leonard Susskind.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:56:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 11:00:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A But, I could not find it in a peer-reviewed journal.

"Instead of imagining that it's the universe that creates life, the idea is that the universe is a product of our own consciousness of it."

http://www.cnet.com...


"Immortality doesn"t mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether."



Well, Lanza didn't quite say that Quantum Mechanics "proves" an Afterlife, but rather, only that some of its properties might make it more likely.

But he offered not a shred of evidence. Let alone any proof. And his allusion to that old double-slit experiment---which was done, BTW--decades ago, really did not have much to do with his theory. He never really tied it in. He just said that it proves entities could be two different things at one. (Which, not to be a nit-picker, but that is not really what the experiment proved at all.) Rather, it just showed that particles do not behave as we thought and are very difficult to "pin down" as far as their velocity and location are concerned.

How this alludes to "death being a figment of our imagination" I have no idea! LOL


Yeah, I was unable to find any evidence on his theory.

And I don't think you will, as it is pretty silly. He was just heading into the old "Matrix" stuff...except he switched the core of the Universe from being that of a Giant Computer Stimulation to of being one in our own minds.




What would we make of all those Hubble pics if the Universe was simply a figment of our fanciful imagination?

They would be capturing pictures of mental images. I'm not sure how a mental reality makes things less "real", when mental reality is the most real reality we could ever know.


BUT...I DO think QM may lend credence to the possibility of SOME thins that are currently thought of as "paranormal" or "pseudo-science" to actually being real.

But, alas, the Universe is not one of them. It is as real as the nose on your pretty face!

Yes it is real, but that doesn't mean it is non-mental.


Drew


Yeah....it DOES sorta mean it is non-mental. LOL

No, it really doesn't.


I bet you are a big fan of The Akashic Record?

I have no idea what that is, perhaps I will google it.


But...you said..........." Also If the universe boils down to non-physical information processing, which the theory entails, then it would appear to be mental."

Big "if" my friend. But really, In fact, it DOES NOT boil down to that.

This idea is taken very seriously in physics.



There are many reasons to believe this is the case. The Holographic principle for one, but that by itself wouldn't be enough. We would need many bodies of evidence. Another one would be that if reality is virtual then reality should be pixelated; the existence of Planck Units proves this. If we assume the universe is physical then mass, energy, time and space are quantized at the Planck level for no reason. But virtual reality explains this because the universe is a digital system, entailing mass, energy, time and space are necessarily quantized. If reality is physical, then then Relativity tells us a universal speed limit exists, but we have no underlining reason for
Really? I read about physics all the time and have never seen it taken seriously.

That is pretty embarrassing then. John Wheeler is only one of the most influential physicists who lived. Also, Leonard Susskind is a physicist who beat Stephen Hawking in long debate regarding black holes (to which Hawking admitted defeat); he has the same idea as me that the universe as a hologram explains reality way better than a physical world (I attached a video). Here is an article about it [http://www.universetoday.com...].

Perhaps you would care to provide a link? One that is not merely posing a hypothesis, but shows some "serious" evidence?

If the hypothesis is false then you have to explain all my points away as huge coincidences. The odds of all those things taken as a whole being a coincidence is very slim. Here is more on the subject [http://brianwhitworth.com...]. There is a difference between merely positing a hypothesis, and positing one that actually explains reality better and has practical use.


Same thing for your claim that Dark Energy is "informational." Link, please? I find that pure conjecture at best--if not ludicrous.

Thanks. I will be eagerly awaiting your links.

If reality is virtual then this simply follows.

LOL---that's a magazine article, bro. And it does not mention anything about it being "taken very seriously" as you originally claimed. How about a peer-reviewed paper?

Here is a peer-reviewed paper [http://arxiv.org...].

Read any of Hawking's book. Like "A Brief History of Time." Nowhere in there is a theory of a Hologram of Virtual Universe.

Because he doesn't believe that hypothesis. Leonard Susskind does (the one who proved Hawking wrong about information regarding black holes).

Rather, these guys simply speculate on it, like many other things, like M-Brane or String Theory or the Multi-Verse. Or "Super Symmetry."

Again you dodge all the points I made. Those speculations you mention aren't nearly as strong as the case for digital physics.


But not a shred of proof. Ad not even one scientific experiment has ever shown a hint of it.

Again, the if the hypothesis is false you have to explain away all the points I made as coincidences. Since that is unlikely, it follows that the hypothesis is most likely true based on what we know about the world.


So..if you re-word your OP to say "this idea has been speculated upon" in physics, I will agree. But "taken seriously" by professional physicists and Cosmologists? No.


The idea that the Universe is a Hologram is not a full-fledged "Theory." As that word has a far different meaning in the Scientific Arena that it does in common every day layman parlance.

In Science, a Theory was formerly and idea, then a Hypothesis, that has been continually tested and has shown positive results in those tests which support its original Hypothesis.

ZERO tests have EVER shown the Universe is holographic.

Hell, I do not even think this idea meets the criteria of a "hypothesis."
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.