Scientists Claim That Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe At Death

Spirit, Science and Metaphysics ^

[DaveMSmith]

A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“ has stirred up the Internet, because it contained a notion that life does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever. The author of this publication, scientist Dr. Robert Lanza who was voted the 3rd most important scientist alive by the NY Times, has no doubts that this is possible.

[...]

The theory implies that death of consciousness simply does not exist. It only exists as a thought because people identify themselves with their body. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking their consciousness will disappear too. If the body generates consciousness, then consciousness dies when the body dies. But if the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle. In fact, consciousness exists outside of constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. In other words, it is non-local in the same sense that quantum objects are non-local.

[...]

He adds: “If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”

[varmintman]

The whole world of science is not sold on quantum theory. Ralph Sansbury and the EU crowd in particular. One way or another, I’m still going to take my chances with Jesus and not quantum physics.

[Girlene]

Did those two remain an atheist and a cult member after their experiences?

[dr_lew]

I think Stephen Hawking has plenty else to be 'angry' about than metaphysical sophistry.

I attended a Hawking lecture some years ago, which he replayed from a laptop computer. This was early days for that, maybe the 90's , so I'm not sure what kind of device it was, but something like that. He actually took questions and composed short answers while the audience hummed quietly. Then when he played each one, the audience became instantly attentive. Very interesting and even touching, I thought.

In the lecture though, there was a treatment of the classic "astronaut falling into a black hole", and I thought that the vivid description of the sundering and rendering of the doomed astronaut went a little beyond what one might have expected.

[VerySadAmerican]

Is there a way to find out which universe? I know a lot of people that I hope don’t go to the same universe as my thoughts. Considering what we think about each other now, why prolong it another lifetime.

[dixjea]

What a privilege you have had.

[mowowie]

ping myself for later....

[aquila48]

Bookmark

[DeFault User]

Nothing exists without a conscious observer. Existence of the universe would require a conscious entity to bring it into existence.

To my knowledge, this theory was first advanced by Bishop Berkeley in the early 18th century. I asked my philosophy professor if he could disprove it. (He rapidly changed the subject.)

Essentially, it removes all disputes on the conflicts between mind and matter.

[ETL]

That’s only one school of quantum mechanics [Copenhagen Interpretation.] There are others.

The other major interpretation is the Many Worlds Hypothesis, which basically states that everything that can possibly happen, happens, in a new and separate universe. As crazy as that sounds it is something believed by many in the field.

[ETL]

Too many words

Sorry, but this guy, Lothar Schafer, is one of the top minds and voices on the subject of quantum mechanics, spirituality, consciousness and the human mind. If you're seriously interested in the topic, I strongly recommend you hear him speak. He's a recently retired professor of chemistry and quantum mechanics at the University of Arkansas.

Here's a link to some of his talks on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Lothar%20Schafer%22&sm=12

[dr_lew]

As crazy as that sounds it is something believed by many in the field.

If you had never heard the word "unfalsifiable", this is the idea that might make you think of it.

[ravenwolf]

Confirms Eban Alexander’s ‘Proof of Heaven’

---

I would say that it agrees but not confirms, science has been trying to prove for years that life is just an accident.

They can no more prove this theory than they can prove the other, these kind of scientists are just a bunch of nuts.

[ETL]

Karl Popper on the Many Worlds Interpretation by Max Andrews

In a brief section of Karl Popper’s Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics[1] he discusses his attraction to the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics as well as the reason for his rejection of it. Popper is actually quite pleased with Everett’s three-fold contribution to the field of quantum physics. Despite his attraction to the interpretation he rejects it based on the falsifiability of the symmetry behind the Schrödinger equation.

Popper’s model allows for a theory to be scientific prior to supported evidence.  There is no positive case for purporting a theory under his model. There can only be a negative case to falsify it and as long as it may be potentially falsified it is scientific.  Thus, a scientific theory could have no evidence or substantiated facts to provide good reasons for why it may be true. What makes this discussion of MWI interesting is that despite Popper’s attraction to MWI it’s not the attraction that makes it scientific, it’s his criterion of falsification.

In favor of MWI:

1. The MWI is completely objective in its discussion of quantum mechanics.
2. Everett removes the need and occasion to distinguish between ‘classical’ physical systems, like the measurement apparatus, and quantum mechanical systems, like elementary particles.  All systems are quantum (including the universe as a whole).
3. Everett shows that the collapse of the state vector, something originally thought to be outside of Schrödinger’s theory, can be shown to arise within the universal [Schrödinger] wave function.

Against MWI:

1. The Schrödinger equation is symmetrical with regard to a reversal of the direction of time whereas MWI is not.

Popper argues that a beam of particles traveling through a narrow slit can theoretically test this. Each particle of the scattering beam can be taken as an analogue of one of the world-splits; and the whole beam as an analogue of Everett’s reality—the many worlds which are not only man, but also a scattering in a random manner relative to each other. Popper suggests that we then invert the direction of time and when we do we see that many worlds of the past are a random scatter.  This scatter is arranged in a manner that when they fuse they become correlated, even though there was no interaction between them before their fusion. This is what Popper believes to be the crux in falsifying Everett. Popper’s argument rests on Schrödinger’s dependence on reversing the direction of time. I am not able to comment on the validity of Schrödinger’s claim here, but I do find it philosophically problematic.

[1] Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Ed. W. W. Bartley, III (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1956, 1982), 89-95.

http://sententias.org/2012/10/23/popper-mwi/

[FredZarguna]

Those are not the only schools. There is a modified Copenhagen Interpetation which does not require consciousness or even observers, and there is quantum coherence and decoherence as well. There is also a modified version of Many Worlds which does not regard the uncountable trajectories of the Feynman Path Integral as literal configurations in an infinite number of universes. Most physicists these days are more likely to belong in the last two categories, and not to take the literalism of the original Copenhagen School very seriously. I’m not in the life any more, but at the time I left academia (and physics) in the late 1980’s I did not know any practitioners — even among theorists — who took the infinite number of universes interpretation all that seriously. Feynman himself did not.

[FredZarguna]

The question of whether all phase space trajectories need to be integrated or not is certainly falsifiable. As far as we know, they do. So in "some sense" they all exist. The metaphysical interpretation of the Feynman Path Integral, like all metaphysical interpretations in science, are not falsifiable, because they are not science. They are usually not in the least bit rigorous extrapolations, either.

Feynman himself justified the path integral formulation on the basis of its success and nothing more. Not only did he not take the non-scientific interpretations seriously, he was self-deprecatory about the mathematical justification and the procedure itself.

[BuckeyeTexan]

People who spend that much time thinking that deeply about the nature of the universe must reach a point where they run out of conclusions.

Romans 1:20 NIV

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[ExGeeEye]

They get so close to truth sometimes— then the denial of God kicks in and they turn away.

Psalm 19:1-4

[Gene Eric]

Thanks, ETL!

[ETL]

in the late 1980’s I did not know any practitioners — even among theorists — who took the infinite number of universes interpretation all that seriously. Feynman himself did not.

Technically, it wouldn't really be an "infinite" number of universes, would it, as Many Worlds merely states that anything that CAN happen, happens, in a new and unique universe. The number of possibilities for ways something can happen isn't infinite. Is this correct? In any case, it seems that whatever the interpretation or explanation of quantum mechanics is, it's incredibly bizarre and foreign.

And thanks for your firsthand insight.

[usconservative]

What a privilege you have had.

Don't I know it. I only wish I could live up to that privilege on a daily basis, sinner yet I am.