Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

The Afterlife and Quantum Physics

Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 7:56:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

Biocentrism is woo, somewhat sophisticated woo, but still, woo, nonetheless.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 7:58:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:56:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

Biocentrism is woo, somewhat sophisticated woo, but still, woo, nonetheless.

How come, may I ask?
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:35:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh you won't get any sensible answer from daniel. He just likes to butt in to discussions where he doesn't have any knowledge to contribute but thinks put-downs always fly.

If there's anything to do with spirituality forget daniel's or any atheists comments- they don't know anything about spiritual consciousness but think that's not a problem to post their lack of knowledge each and everyday of the year. Was it Einstein who said repetition of unrewarding behavior is the mark of the neurotic? Atheism must hold the world's largest population of neurotics then, people repeating a failed behavior pattern over and over again despite rational reasons to reject such obsession.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:47:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry, but there seems to be an atheists revival movement to swarm onto any and all internet discussions where spiritual matters are being discussed and daniel's a prime example of such atheist trolling and stalking of theists. They divert discussions by trying to defame theistic beliefs.

As for the Afterlife we want it in our lifetime! ---old DADA wisdom saying..

Did you know there's a physicist who says there's more than a billion possible valences existing in each and every atom's subatomic particles so that a computer system could exist within an atom. Do we know everything there is to know about reality? Atheism thinks reality can be quantified right now to its fullest extent so that they can comfortably claim they KNOW there is no spiritual dimension to existence. I KNOW different because I experienced "maya", the world as illusion, and once you do, you KNOW reality is not what it appears to be on which great minds always told us was the case.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:54:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

After reading about it for a bit, it sounds like something that would be interesting to new age spiritualists, but there doesn't seem to be anything scientific about it. There aren't any scientific hypotheses and there's no scientific theory. I doubt the scientific community will give this much thought unless it can be developed into something that is scientifically meaningful.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:12:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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.

Hmmm. What does that tell you?

He's a biomedics researcher, not a physicist.

"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."

It sounds profound, but it's nonsense. Homo sapiens weren't around 500,000 years ago, yet the evidence is that the universe was. Is consciousness making up this evidence to lie to itself?

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

The reception to his work among physicists has been mixed:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.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.

That's an assertion. Any evidence?

One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed.

The energy for our brains comes from the food we eat. That energy is converted into work, eg. maintaining our body temperature. Energy can be transformed from one type into another.

But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

What???

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

Without time existence has no meaning.
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:51:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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." : :

In the near future, more physicists will begin to understand that consciousness and the visible objects we perceive came from the same source.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:28:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 9:12:42 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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.

Hmmm. What does that tell you?

He's a biomedics researcher, not a physicist.

"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."

This idea has been presented before. When the idea that observations make a quantum particle settle in one state or another, the thought was that all particles were in a state of super-position until an intelligence could observe the particles and the past, present, and future all confirmed.
http://www.mindreality.com...

Of course this is from a misunderstanding of what "observation" is really doing. "measurement" is a better word. And the collapse of the wave function does not have to be an all or nothing change.


It sounds profound, but it's nonsense. Homo sapiens weren't around 500,000 years ago, yet the evidence is that the universe was. Is consciousness making up this evidence to lie to itself?

I'm pretty sure a case could be made for them being around then. At least I'll say it's not throughout the realm of possibility. And while the universe was present before humans arrived, the suggestion is it was in flux of super-positions and all possible temporal paths. Kind of like the first path that creates an intelligent being determines the universe we all live in.


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

The reception to his work among physicists has been mixed:

Becuase the idea is not all that new. you can see a similar underlining premise in the Anthropic principle. Which states that the value of X, must be a value observable by an observer or X would not exist. It's always been a mix acceptance.

I read a paper once that pretty much debunked it as being useful. Saying that with the anthropic principle could lead to a set of possible universes. And while some papers have used it to attain a final result, it isn't an all that accurate. I find the accuracy convincing to maybe use the principle as an heuristic. But I fear it will be used as a law like the principle of parsimony. heuristics do not decide if something is true or not. But that's a different tree I'm barking up.

New experiments in measuring diffraction patterns suggest reality doesn't exist at all till "observed".
http://www.gizmag.com...
http://www.nature.com...


http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.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.

That's an assertion. Any evidence?

Pretty much a restatement of conservation of energy. The energy changes form. The key point I think is important to research is that this 20 watts of energy increases in disorder and what was before can not be accessible in what comes after. You can't even take the dissipated energy and reconstruct what it once was.


One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed.

The energy for our brains comes from the food we eat. That energy is converted into work, eg. maintaining our body temperature. Energy can be transformed from one type into another.

We don't convert matter into energy. the energy we get in food is from breaking of chemical bonds. The bonds are not matter.


But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

What???

This idea comes from M theory I think. the idea is that if there are 11 dimensions we can use an explosive collision and see the energy disappear into another dimension. But that would be such a miniscule amount of energy.


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

Without time existence has no meaning.

I don't follow that logic.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:55:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

LOL....So..this loony idea got shot down so bad on the Philosophy Forum that ya decided to let 'er rip here on the Religion one, huh?

Well, I will say you might get more bites from this crowd.

At least you didn't try to go on our Science Forum!

That wouldn't be pretty.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 12:19:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:55:17 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."


LOL....So..this loony idea got shot down so bad on the Philosophy Forum that ya decided to let 'er rip here on the Religion one, huh?

Well, I will say you might get more bites from this crowd.

At least you didn't try to go on our Science Forum!

That wouldn't be pretty.

No.
I actually waited 2 hours online for a response and the only explanation I received was "its woo", no thorough explanations as of "why". I grew tired of waiting and naturally knowing there are plenty of skeptics on the religion forum and people who study philosophy that may have insight on the topic...thus leading me to later post it here...2 hours after the original. If I come across any other subjects in the future, science forum is a good idea...

Now that I checked the other thread, I surprisingly noticed it picked up quite a bit with posts lately.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:35:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:28:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:12:42 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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.

Hmmm. What does that tell you?

He's a biomedics researcher, not a physicist.

"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."

This idea has been presented before. When the idea that observations make a quantum particle settle in one state or another, the thought was that all particles were in a state of super-position until an intelligence could observe the particles and the past, present, and future all confirmed.
http://www.mindreality.com...

Of course this is from a misunderstanding of what "observation" is really doing. "measurement" is a better word. And the collapse of the wave function does not have to be an all or nothing change.


It sounds profound, but it's nonsense. Homo sapiens weren't around 500,000 years ago, yet the evidence is that the universe was. Is consciousness making up this evidence to lie to itself?

I'm pretty sure a case could be made for them being around then. At least I'll say it's not throughout the realm of possibility. And while the universe was present before humans arrived, the suggestion is it was in flux of super-positions and all possible temporal paths. Kind of like the first path that creates an intelligent being determines the universe we all live in.


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

The reception to his work among physicists has been mixed:

Becuase the idea is not all that new. you can see a similar underlining premise in the Anthropic principle. Which states that the value of X, must be a value observable by an observer or X would not exist. It's always been a mix acceptance.

I read a paper once that pretty much debunked it as being useful. Saying that with the anthropic principle could lead to a set of possible universes. And while some papers have used it to attain a final result, it isn't an all that accurate. I find the accuracy convincing to maybe use the principle as an heuristic. But I fear it will be used as a law like the principle of parsimony. heuristics do not decide if something is true or not. But that's a different tree I'm barking up.

New experiments in measuring diffraction patterns suggest reality doesn't exist at all till "observed".
http://www.gizmag.com...
http://www.nature.com...


http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.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.

That's an assertion. Any evidence?

Pretty much a restatement of conservation of energy. The energy changes form. The key point I think is important to research is that this 20 watts of energy increases in disorder and what was before can not be accessible in what comes after. You can't even take the dissipated energy and reconstruct what it once was.


One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed.

The energy for our brains comes from the food we eat. That energy is converted into work, eg. maintaining our body temperature. Energy can be transformed from one type into another.

We don't convert matter into energy. the energy we get in food is from breaking of chemical bonds. The bonds are not matter.


But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

What???

This idea comes from M theory I think. the idea is that if there are 11 dimensions we can use an explosive collision and see the energy disappear into another dimension. But that would be such a miniscule amount of energy.


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

Without time existence has no meaning.

I don't follow that logic.

This is a surprisingly thoughtful response from you Mhykiel. I had a policy of not replying to your posts because of your antagonistic nature and, not to put too fine a point on it, attempts at bullying. You seem to be making an effort, so I will respond.

There's not much I disagree with here. On the question of food, I wasn't suggesting that matter was being converted to energy. I'm well aware that it is chemical energy which is being released. I find the conservation of energy argument from Lanza untenable. No scientist would claim that the energy within the body (and brain) is destroyed at death. It simply dissipates away into the environment. There is no need to get mystical about it.

As to the question of time and existence, I find the concept of existence of a material object (being) to be incoherent without time. If no time passes, nothing can happen, no change can occur. It is a frozen limbo without potential. To me that equates with non-existence.

My working definition of physical existence is "to persist for some non-zero duration of time".
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:09:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:58:08 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:56:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

Biocentrism is woo, somewhat sophisticated woo, but still, woo, nonetheless.

How come, may I ask?

It's very simple actually, Biocentrism claims that the universe and everything in it only exists because we observe it. If we stopped observing it, the universe would disappear.

For example, the moon was just full. If you are looking at the moon tonight, it exists, but if you close your eyes, the moon no longer will exist.

Does that sound anywhere near reasonable, rational or logical to you?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 11:52:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

Biocentrism is basically similar to idealism--the idea that consciousness is the ground of reality--except that it says consciousness is a product of the brain. So it's like a dualist position that nonetheless affirms that consciousness is the ground of reality. It can be refuted.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 1:57:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 9:09:35 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:58:08 PM, Najs wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:56:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

Biocentrism is woo, somewhat sophisticated woo, but still, woo, nonetheless.

How come, may I ask?

It's very simple actually, Biocentrism claims that the universe and everything in it only exists because we observe it. If we stopped observing it, the universe would disappear.

For example, the moon was just full. If you are looking at the moon tonight, it exists, but if you close your eyes, the moon no longer will exist.

Does that sound anywhere near reasonable, rational or logical to you?

Thank you DanneJeRusse for sharing your response. As there are theories about reality, my goal was to hear the responses and explanations from the forum members.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 1:59:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 11:52:47 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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."

Biocentrism is basically similar to idealism--the idea that consciousness is the ground of reality--except that it says consciousness is a product of the brain. So it's like a dualist position that nonetheless affirms that consciousness is the ground of reality. It can be refuted.

Thanks TJ.
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:11:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:28:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/3/2015 9:12:42 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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.

Hmmm. What does that tell you?

He's a biomedics researcher, not a physicist.

"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."

This idea has been presented before. When the idea that observations make a quantum particle settle in one state or another, the thought was that all particles were in a state of super-position until an intelligence could observe the particles and the past, present, and future all confirmed.
http://www.mindreality.com...

Of course this is from a misunderstanding of what "observation" is really doing. "measurement" is a better word. And the collapse of the wave function does not have to be an all or nothing change.


It sounds profound, but it's nonsense. Homo sapiens weren't around 500,000 years ago, yet the evidence is that the universe was. Is consciousness making up this evidence to lie to itself?

I'm pretty sure a case could be made for them being around then. At least I'll say it's not throughout the realm of possibility. And while the universe was present before humans arrived, the suggestion is it was in flux of super-positions and all possible temporal paths. Kind of like the first path that creates an intelligent being determines the universe we all live in.


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

The reception to his work among physicists has been mixed:

Becuase the idea is not all that new. you can see a similar underlining premise in the Anthropic principle. Which states that the value of X, must be a value observable by an observer or X would not exist. It's always been a mix acceptance.

I read a paper once that pretty much debunked it as being useful. Saying that with the anthropic principle could lead to a set of possible universes. And while some papers have used it to attain a final result, it isn't an all that accurate. I find the accuracy convincing to maybe use the principle as an heuristic. But I fear it will be used as a law like the principle of parsimony. heuristics do not decide if something is true or not. But that's a different tree I'm barking up.

New experiments in measuring diffraction patterns suggest reality doesn't exist at all till "observed".
http://www.gizmag.com...
http://www.nature.com...


http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.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.

That's an assertion. Any evidence?

Pretty much a restatement of conservation of energy. The energy changes form. The key point I think is important to research is that this 20 watts of energy increases in disorder and what was before can not be accessible in what comes after. You can't even take the dissipated energy and reconstruct what it once was.


One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed.

The energy for our brains comes from the food we eat. That energy is converted into work, eg. maintaining our body temperature. Energy can be transformed from one type into another.

We don't convert matter into energy. the energy we get in food is from breaking of chemical bonds. The bonds are not matter.


But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?"

What???

This idea comes from M theory I think. the idea is that if there are 11 dimensions we can use an explosive collision and see the energy disappear into another dimension. But that would be such a miniscule amount of energy.


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

Without time existence has no meaning.

I don't follow that logic.

Thanks also for the links.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:45:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The observer effect in Quantum Physics cannot be applied to consciousness or the afterlife in a way reincarnation does.
1. Quantum physics flouts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2. Consciousness is not energy nor is it matter.
3. Quantum physics apply to the world of the very small (subatomic particles). Observing a living or dead body will not subject it to the observer effect.
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 3:35:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will give you kids a special TREAT that is very rare indeed.

the saying that Truth is stranger then fiction IS very TRUE.

what I'm getting at is that with all the concepts and beliefs and such that seem to stand the test of TIME.

There IS a bit of Truth in with all the FLUFF of illusion.

there IS what could be called a "afterlife", but it is NOTHING like what most all would like to try and believe.

the problem that most all have is that they are lazy daydreamers that are more interested in seeking short cuts and easy ways that they never do get to where they would like to try and believe they are going. Be it here on earth or a "place" somewhere else.

MOST ALL that goes on in this world is about DISTRACTION away from what is uncomfortable.

A simple example of the WAY that most go about their "life game plan" is that they need to design some sort of "magic wand" be it with science, religion or whatever can be dreamed up.

They spend their TIME, energy and thought on trying to create the means for the SOLUTIONS and conclusions at a LATER TIME when they can take their MAGIC WAND and wave it around and FIX THINGS and they all lived happily ever after in fantasyland.
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 4:43:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 3:35:01 PM, Electric-Eccentric wrote:
I will give you kids a special TREAT that is very rare indeed.

You're going to stop posting crap?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Electric-Eccentric
Posts: 1,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 4:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 4:43:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/4/2015 3:35:01 PM, Electric-Eccentric wrote:
I will give you kids a special TREAT that is very rare indeed.

You're going to stop posting crap?

Not to worry yourself silly about any shortage of crap around here.

I will keep production at the required levels to go with the hot air that those such as yourself produce.

Together we can make s*it happen

I AM the chunky turd of reality & Truth and you are the faint fart of hope and dreams.
Life is what YOU make it,
Most just try and fake it...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:20:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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.

Just as not everything a lawyer says is lawful, and not everything a judge says is just, not everything a scientist says is scientific.

Quantum theory has been used by woomongers since Fritjoff Capra's Tao of Physics in 1975. We have forty years of fantasists like Fritjoff Capra and Deepak Chopra misrepresenting the scientific implications of physics without offering any accountability for their ideas, nor contributing any significant result to advance science. And if you take a look at Lanza's seminal article on "biocentrism" (viewable here: [https://theamericanscholar.org...]) that's what's occurring yet again.

Note that CNet doesn't mention a single experimental result, nor a single conjecture published in peer review? Why would that be, if the ideas are so scientifically viable?

Now go to Robert Lanza's website -- a shrine to his own accomplishments. [http://www.robertlanza.com...] Based on the subject-focus, what would you say is its core business?

Would it be: Promoting Robert Lanza perchance, rather than promoting the field of expertise Lanza is purportedly working to advance?

And does one need to produce science to self-promote?

Of course not -- else the Kardashians would have Nobel prizes. But one does need to self-promote to stay talked about, invited onto TV programs and sell celebrity publications.

And does self-promotion produce any science?

If it has, I haven't seen it.

Lanza's scientific contribution has been to produce some advances in cloning. Well done, Lanza! But if he hadn't, someone else would've done similar, because the technology has been galloping along for decades.

And he's also spouted off about ideas well outside his expertise or research, without admitting that it is, trading off his reputation in an unrelated field to lend credibility to pseudoscience that exploits an established market of ageing New Agers.

And have you ever seen anyone go broke telling the middle-aged middle class they're not really going to die?

Boo Lanza! Go back to ethics school.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:51:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 4:52:15 PM, Electric-Eccentric wrote:
At 7/4/2015 4:43:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/4/2015 3:35:01 PM, Electric-Eccentric wrote:
I will give you kids a special TREAT that is very rare indeed.

You're going to stop posting crap?

Not to worry yourself silly about any shortage of crap around here.

I'll take that as a no, then.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Najs
Posts: 113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 3:31:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 5:20:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:49:08 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.

Just as not everything a lawyer says is lawful, and not everything a judge says is just, not everything a scientist says is scientific.

Quantum theory has been used by woomongers since Fritjoff Capra's Tao of Physics in 1975. We have forty years of fantasists like Fritjoff Capra and Deepak Chopra misrepresenting the scientific implications of physics without offering any accountability for their ideas, nor contributing any significant result to advance science. And if you take a look at Lanza's seminal article on "biocentrism" (viewable here: [https://theamericanscholar.org...]) that's what's occurring yet again.

Note that CNet doesn't mention a single experimental result, nor a single conjecture published in peer review? Why would that be, if the ideas are so scientifically viable?

Now go to Robert Lanza's website -- a shrine to his own accomplishments. [http://www.robertlanza.com...] Based on the subject-focus, what would you say is its core business?


Stem research?

Would it be: Promoting Robert Lanza perchance, rather than promoting the field of expertise Lanza is purportedly working to advance?

And does one need to produce science to self-promote?

Of course not -- else the Kardashians would have Nobel prizes. But one does need to self-promote to stay talked about, invited onto TV programs and sell celebrity publications.

And does self-promotion produce any science?

If it has, I haven't seen it.

Lanza's scientific contribution has been to produce some advances in cloning. Well done, Lanza! But if he hadn't, someone else would've done similar, because the technology has been galloping along for decades.

And he's also spouted off about ideas well outside his expertise or research, without admitting that it is, trading off his reputation in an unrelated field to lend credibility to pseudoscience that exploits an established market of ageing New Agers.

And have you ever seen anyone go broke telling the middle-aged middle class they're not really going to die?

Boo Lanza! Go back to ethics school.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 5:42:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I find it hard to accept that the physical universe it brought into being by my consciousness - if nothing else that would seems a tad arrogant!
My take is that the physical universe came into being as a result of the 'big bang'. That big bang was resposible for producing a universe governed by 'laws of physics' that led to matter arranging itself into ever more complex forms, starting from free quarks to sub-atomic particles to atoms to stars and molecules and - quite recently - brains.

The physical universe is responsible for the existence of brains, not the other way around. However, brains are responsible for the existence of consciousness, and consciousness is responsible for giving the universe meaning - by which I mean giving anything meaning. I like to dub the emergence of consciousness 'Big Bang II', because as BB1 produced the material universe, with its attributes like gravity and electric charge, BB2 (aka 'the dawn of consciousness') produced such things as 'meaning' - and even such things as 'duty' and 'hope'.

It is clear (?) that nothing that happens in a consciousness-free universe is 'good' or 'bad'. If an unconscious rock falls from a unconscious cliff and smacks into some unconcious sand then there is no sensible way to say that its falling is a good thing or a bad thing. It donen't matter if it falls or not. But if instead the rock falls on somebody, then it does matter.

So - IMHO - the physical universe does nt depend on our consciousness, but what matters in the universe - if anything does matters - only matters because of consciousness. That raises the question of what is the relation betwee matter and consciousness. Is consciousness a natural consequence of matter suitably arranging itself, so is is somehow 'supramaterial'? Wish I knew...
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 6:17:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/5/2015 5:42:48 AM, kp98 wrote:
I find it hard to accept that the physical universe it brought into being by my consciousness - if nothing else that would seems a tad arrogant!
My take is that the physical universe came into being as a result of the 'big bang'. That big bang was resposible for producing a universe governed by 'laws of physics' that led to matter arranging itself into ever more complex forms, starting from free quarks to sub-atomic particles to atoms to stars and molecules and - quite recently - brains.

The physical universe is responsible for the existence of brains, not the other way around. However, brains are responsible for the existence of consciousness, and consciousness is responsible for giving the universe meaning - by which I mean giving anything meaning. I like to dub the emergence of consciousness 'Big Bang II', because as BB1 produced the material universe, with its attributes like gravity and electric charge, BB2 (aka 'the dawn of consciousness') produced such things as 'meaning' - and even such things as 'duty' and 'hope'.

It is clear (?) that nothing that happens in a consciousness-free universe is 'good' or 'bad'. If an unconscious rock falls from a unconscious cliff and smacks into some unconcious sand then there is no sensible way to say that its falling is a good thing or a bad thing. It donen't matter if it falls or not. But if instead the rock falls on somebody, then it does matter.

So - IMHO - the physical universe does nt depend on our consciousness, but what matters in the universe - if anything does matters - only matters because of consciousness. That raises the question of what is the relation betwee matter and consciousness. Is consciousness a natural consequence of matter suitably arranging itself, so is is somehow 'supramaterial'? Wish I knew...

There is also the problem of multiple consciousnesses running around, which no-one has touched on yet. If the universe is the product of a conscious mind, it begs the question. Which one? The universe seems very much to be a common shared experience. If one person dies, the universe carries on unchanged.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2015 7:29:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't know why you quoted my post as you don't seem to have followed on from it!

I am not clever enough to have anything except 'gut-feelings' to go on, but as I posted, the idea that the physical universe is brought into being by consciousness (individual or collective' doesn't work for me. IMO, the universe began as a physical, unconscious thing in which consciousness arose only after several billion years of the unconscious action of physical laws. Those laws continue to operate indepedently of our consciousness today. To re-use an image frmo my last post, a rock falling from a cliff falls at 32 feet per second per second whether it going to fall on bare send or a baby in a pram. The physical universe is indifferent to good and bad. The difference between the two events is nowhere in the 'physical universe' produced by Big Bang 1, but only exists because of the 'supra-physical' elements introducud by BB2 (i.e. consciousness) such as morality, good and bad.

I have noticed that many internet debates on morality hinge on the problems caused by amorailty of the physical universe. Because the (physical) universe is amoral, morality is sometimes considered as somehow unreal, or even an error.

Morality is indeed absent in a universe devoid of consciousness (ie the 'objective' universe that science is traditionally concerned with), but we don't live in a purely objective universe - we live in a universe where consciousness certainly exists. Hence arguments that morality is unreal based on the idea that the physical (bb1) universe is the whole of reality are invalid, because the universe we inhabit is the bb2 universe, ie the bb1 universe + consciousness.

Sorry I am not discussing the afterlife directly, but I sincerely think there is no such thing, so I have nothing much to say about it!
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 8:00:02 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
We people have a limited range of thought concerning advanced beings, spirits, or god.

A)The fact we exist tells us one of 2 things

1)God exists and created it all. It is an unknown variable in discerning his "reality" but gives a beginning variable to at least give answer to where we come from.

2)We have an infinite "scientific" system that never began. We cannot have a beginning variable that "was born". We must have some variable, whether reality as we know it or
A reality beyond our reality that has "always been".

B)If you say that there is an infinite scientific entity for causality of our reality, then you give place to the "laws of everything", meaning all things exist. An evolutionary process created humanoids, greater beings, even greater beings, even greater beings than that, etc. Etc. Until you have an entity in some phase of infinite time and reality that figured out things to the point of being able to control, manipulate, and rule reality.

Either way you get the same "god concept". There is no mathematical or intellectual way around God.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 7:51:45 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
Biocentrism is philosophy wrapped in physics. The theory of experience (Solipsism) , the theory of mind (cognition) Descartes "I think, therefore I am" and the duality of reality are old challenges in philosophy.
Consciousness or the nature of the observer has been a major part of Vadanta and Vedic thought for over 3000 years.The transcendental qualities of consciousness and the larger consciousness of the universe presents a duality of reality which must be reconciled. We are all a part and separate and connected to the material/physical world and a unified consciousness. Consciousness not only defines our reality, our existence makes consciousness real.