First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Proof that the an afterlife exist according to quantum physics.
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 12/24/13 , edited 12/24/13

log10

I am God, you are God, we are all God.


does that mean people are worshipping me?
5033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / New Orleans
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Man oh man are you grasping at straws.
5033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / New Orleans
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
I understood it perfectly. I also don't need to insult someone I am debating with (like you have in every single post) in order to make a point. That is just ignorant behavior. It is a theory it is not by any means proven science, and it is based on quantum physics. We are not quantum particles. We do not exist in the quantum universe. It is completely inapplicable to the debate of the existence of a after life.
Posted 12/24/13 , edited 12/24/13

xeneria wrote:


log10

I am God, you are God, we are all God.


does that mean people are worshipping me?


lol maybe me *wiggles eyebrows*
24387 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 12/24/13
Well, my belief is that I'll transcend to a higher plane of existence when my physical form ceases to exist. <-in before its cool

But I read a few number of doctor who quotes in that first link, but I won't point them out >_>

I think as a theory: I like it, it sounds cool, but until our understanding of the universe and quantum mechanics is elevated to more advanced levels, it's really still just a theory. And, I won't say I have an intimate understanding of the subject, otherwise I wouldn't be a department manager at mcdonalds now would i? XD

Just like God and organized religion: I won't deny it as truth, but I can't accept it without definitive proof. So I'll await the day we discover the truth of the universe.
5033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / New Orleans
Offline
Posted 12/24/13

daraksharnah wrote:

Well, my belief is that I'll transcend to a higher plane of existence when my physical form ceases to exist. <-in before its cool

But I read a few number of doctor who quotes in that first link, but I won't point them out >_>

I think as a theory: I like it, it sounds cool, but until our understanding of the universe and quantum mechanics is elevated to more advanced levels, it's really still just a theory. And, I won't say I have an intimate understanding of the subject, otherwise I wouldn't be a department manager at mcdonalds now would i? XD

Just like God and organized religion: I won't deny it as truth, but I can't accept it without definitive proof. So I'll await the day we discover the truth of the universe. :)

Signs of intelligent life confirmed. Nothing wrong with accepting the possibility of something even without evidence. I only take issue with blind belief in something without any proof.
Wihl 
24274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Lagrangian Librat...
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Read about his biocentric universe. It is mysticism. His interpretation of double slit experiment in the article listed is incorrect according to quantum mechanics. He is of of the belief that one's consciousness is the sole arbitrator of reality and that reality can not be defined by objective standards.

A simple question. Why does the consciousness need to wait til one dies to escape the body? Why couldn't it escape anytime and leave the physically limited, non-needed body behind. If every dead person's consciousness was wandering about, think of all the new friends you would have on going totally non-physical. Maybe even met aliens.

Further questions. Why is consciousness tied to the body? Was it created with the body? Can just consciousness create itself or other copies? If consciousness could exist without a body, why would it need a body at all? If we are just all consciousness floating about, why would we visualize physical bodies and conceive of them having a birth and death. So many questions.


12157 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
When it comes to anything it's probably better to wait for definitive evidence before drawing conclusions, this subject should remain no different. Quantum physics as a whole at this point in time is not fully developed, so until that happens it's pretty much pointless to draw conclusions from things like these, it's only theory-crafting.
7580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / within reach
Offline
Posted 12/24/13


I am God, you are God, we are all God
.


If everyone is a god, then no one is a god.
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Ego is God.
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Sounds like a Beatles song.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/24/13 , edited 12/24/13
You know what, ONE scientist's hypothesis is NOT sufficient evidence to claim something as truth.
Especially when: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

Second, no one who is scientificly educated believes that time is linear. That is not a new concept. It's common knowledge within the scientific community, and it has been ever since Einstein presented the theory of relativity.
And yet, most scientists don't seem to see that as evidence for an immortal soul...

And he says the following:


A person sees a blue sky, and is told that the colour they are seeing is blue, but the cells in a person's brain could be changed to make the sky look green or red.
Our consciousness makes sense of the world, and can be altered to change this interpretation.
The universe is a construct of our minds.
By looking at the universe from a biocentric's point of view, this also means space and time don't behave in the hard and fast ways our consciousness tell us it does.
In summary, space and time are 'simply tools of our mind.'


Yeah? So what? That just proves that our observation of reality is distorted. This is not a new concept either. It too has been common knowledge for a long, long time. It doesn't mean that we create reality. It just means that our perception of reality is flawed and distorted.

He THEN goes on to say:


Everything which can possibly happen is occurring at some point across these multiverses and this means death can't exist in 'any real sense' either.

Multiverse theory, once again, is nothing new. And it does not AT ALL mean what he's indicating.
If multiverse theory is correct, then there does indeed exist one universe for every possible event. For instance in one of which a person dies in a car crash, but in one of which they survive the car crash.
But those universes are still seperate.




Lanza, instead, said that when we die our life becomes a 'perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.

Why? Where's the evidence? Where's even the INDICATION?

The best argument put forth is the double-slit test, which is indeed a peculiar event indeed. But there is not NEARLY enough imperical, objective evidence to suggest that things have to be the way he claims it must be. If there was, it'd have been all over the news already, seeing as this is, once again, not anything new.

It's practicly a "god of the gaps" argument. One of the biggest sins that can be commited by one in the scientific community.
And the same goes for the videos you present. Nothing but philosophy, intuition and semi-educated guesswork. Nothing substantial, nothing that can be observed or measured.
It's like watching creationists trying to prove creationism by using the second law of thermodynamics.


Trust me, I would absolutely LOVE it if there was an afterlife. It would make me extremely happy if I knew that I wouldn't just fade into oblivion if I were to die some day.
But this here is just not adequate. It just isn't.
It's a fun and lovely idea, but as of yet, it's nothing more.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/24/13
Oh god dammit. I think I want to cry.


log10 wrote:

As time passes by during the last portions of the dark iron age of humanity, more and more evidence is surfacing for the existence of God and an afterlife.


Spare me. Please. I beg you.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-IS-afterlife-claims-scientist.html


The daily mail? WHY?! You could have at least gone with ArXiv, although I probably would still link you to snarxiv.

First, lets examine who Robert Lanza is. He has absolutely no background in physics. That's usually a bad sign.

"This suggests a person's consciousness determines the shape and size of objects in the universe."

I got here and I knew exactly where this was going, just waiting, expecting to see the double slit experiment, and there it was... in all its glory.

"Lanza cited the famous double-slit experiment to backup his claims.

In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other.

Yet if a person doesn't watch the particle, it acts like a wave, This means it can go through both slits at the same time."

Except this isn't true. It doesn't matter if a PERSON observes the particle, or not. Often, humans don't. It matters if there is an interaction. The question becomes "well how do you observe a particle in the first place?" "What does it mean to observe"? It has NOTHING to do with consciousness, but thanks to nonsense like "What the Bleep do We Know", people who haven't the faintest understanding of physics seem to persist in making incredibly stupid claims about it.

Which makes me almost expect that as soon as I click that youtube link, I will be met with "Professor Proton". Please, please let me be wrong.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs


I... I am sad I was wrong. I would have preferred Professor Proton.

"an atom only appears in a particular place if you measure it"... Yeah and it only has a particular energy if you measure that. The whole ambiguity is kinda central to quantum mechanics, it's what gives rise to the weirdness at a quantum scale. This is only a problem if you expect your intuition to match at every level of the universe. It doesn't. Stop being so damn arrogant. The universe is weirder than any human intuition can really account for.

"An atom is spread out all over the place until a conscious observer decides to move it"

Why must they constantly harp on 'conscious'? Rocks are perfectly good at collapsing wave-functions of photons too! They can absorb particles like it's no tomorrow. Don't believe me? Try holding a black rock that's been sitting out in the desert, that's QM at work, no consciousness needed.

"Only conscious beings can be observers".

I'm stopping the video now. It's drivel.


I am God, you are God, we are all God.


Believe what you wish buddy.


Evidence that we are entering the 5th dimension/Second Universal Harmonic/First Level of Heaven.


Dimensions aren't what you think they are. [x, y, z, -ct], or [x, y, z, ct] represent very different types of universes, but both are only four dimensions. Our universe happens to look like [x, y, z, -ct]. You can do a lot of cool things with that vector. It teaches you a lot of cool things about the universe.

A fifth dimension wouldn't tell you anything. [x, y, z, -ct, .... what?] Is it positive? Is it negative? What units do we measure it in? What kind of invariant quantities does it have?

That's the kind of question I'd want addressed with talk of 'dimensions'. Talk which happens to actually be done by string theorists, as much as I distrust the subject, as they discuss their calabi yau manifolds. Discussions I expect to be lacking in the next two videos.



What the Y$#HE hell am I watching?

Influence of the decay rates of carbon 14? The hell?! Carbon 14 undergoes beta decay, that is, it is weak force moderated. That means it tends to have a very VERY low cross section, it's not easy to get weak force moderated reactions to happen.

"Carbon has six electrons, six neutrons, and six protons, six six six"... Shoot me. Now.

"After hydrogen, helium and oxygen, which are all gases"... umm... so is most of the carbon in the universe. The universe isn't very dense, you could turn hydrogen, helium, and oxygen, and carbon into solids, but it requires far more pressure than typically exists in interstellar medium. Do people really believe that what we see on earth is typical of space?

"Probably what the writer of revelation meant"

I give up on this one now. He's a brilliant Texan Sharpshooter though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ1i77fHELg

Oh god there are two!?

Hell no. How do people even come up with this stuff?!
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/24/13 , edited 12/24/13

log10 wrote:

Whatever, you little minded one.


Artist renditioning:
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.