Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist

universe

Quantum physics proves that there IS an afterlife, claims scientist. “He believes our consciousness creates the universe, and not the other way round, and once we accept that space and time are ‘tools of our minds’, death can’t exist in ‘any real sense’ either.” Hmmm, so maybe consciousness is NOT an epiphenomenon of neural activity. Free your mind, the rest will follow.

Bonfire of the Absurdities: After 35 year career writing software for IBM mainframes, am now self-employed contractor thinking of joining a union and striking for higher wages. Cured morbid fear of heights when I learned to look at them as lengths standing on end. Uncompromising in refusal to accept browser cookies. Amateur investor who has accumulated a small fortune in the market after starting out years ago with a large one. For recreation, I run, hike, kayak and play tennis but will not consider synchronized swimming under any circumstances.

View Comments (64)

  • In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth....with A BIG BANG!
    I believe that is an Asimov quote, however it could be Heinlein.
    Or it could be someone else altogether, but I attribute it to whoever said it.

    And I am unanimous in this.

    • I know my Heinlein pretty well, and I don't recall that from him. He was pretty much agnostic, but he wasn't a Hater at least, there was little in his work that was outright anti-religious. With the exception of Revolt In 2100, but that was about a very specific strain of religious totalitarianism, and along the way of the story there are a couple of explicitly religious groups which oppose the dictatorship (including the Mormons!)

      Now Asimov I thought was pretty hardline atheist. I would be very surprised to learn that he said anything like that.

      But speaking of the Big Bang --
      ====
      Georges-Henri Lemaitre

      Studied at University of Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

      Professor at Université Catholique de Louvain

      Published work called "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae," an idea more commonly known as "The Big Bang Theory."

      Pwned Einstein.

      Ordained a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, 1923.

      Long-time member and president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

      Where is your science vs religion dichotomy now?
      ===

      Here's a good pic (and I got the public/private issue worked out now!)

      (Pleeeze can this place get rejiggered to show pics in the comments?!?)

      http://flic.kr/p/foLsbq

      • For me. there is no dichotomy between science and religion. They have even noted (atheistic scientists) that the Genesis story of the creation pretty much follows the scientifically based order of the development of life here on Earth, at least. Chaos into form. water and earth separate, water dependnet live forms, then lizards, then warm blooded, then man. While for myself, that is not surprising, it isn't like the oral tradition that developed tat stroy all were educated at MIT. How did an ignorant, unscientific, uneducated nomadic civilization get it that close? Food for thought! PS PBS has been showing a bunch of stuff on theUniverse, and they interviewed either your guy or someone similar, who is a world renown physicist and an Anglican priest!

        • I don't understand why it is so difficult to understand that there is a Someone that created science and its machinations in order to make a real universe... Science explains what the Someone did and puts a name to what the Someone did which is what Adam was asked to do: Name things/animals. Science is a tool and in all truth it is a form of worship to the Person that created the things that we see and don't see, but know that is there. When science is misused and transformed into an idol, that is a problem in my opinion.

          I don't see why is that so hard to get... :-/

          • It is a matter of faith, Kimmy. Belief in things unseen. For most of civilizatioon, this type of question never arose. EVERYONE believed in some type of god, or crator, or intervener in human life. With the age of reason, suddenly if it couold not be seen and measured by at least one of 5 senses,it was held to be mythical, imaginative or simply false. In the interventing years, much of what was previoulsy accepted, then denied, isagain being accepted. Willow bark was a traditional cure for pain. Turns out willow bark has Acetyl Salicytic Acid in it-Aspirin. Foxglove was given for heart ailments, particularly congestive heart failure. Foxglove is te natural source for digitalis. And though it is a poinson, in small doses, belladonna can be used to decrease intestinal cramping etc. Anyone can come up with seveal other examples of things that were denied bfore, but are now accepted again, becasue over time they have een scientifically proven. But you can't "prove" God. Nor can you disprove him.So the sophisticates, rather than being caught beieving in something imaginary, choose to come dowon the side of disbeief. I have far more respect fo agnostics, who sipy don't know. At least they are honest, and not posing to be superior to those who believe!

          • Well I am thinking primarily for people to at least have the intellectual honesty to at least admit that the possibility of such an Entity's existence. They may not know like agnostics, but I am thinking that atheists, if they truly want to have the intellect they claim to have, at least allow for the immensity of all the questions to be boiled down to the possibility of there being a Someone who is behind it all. Why complicate things? Even if they want to deny or withhold their allegiance to this Person, at least state that the possibility of this Person existing is as high as He not existing.

            If they don't want to bow down to this Person/Deity fine... they don't have to believe that this Person is deserving of their worship, but at least admit that there is a possibility for His existence *shrugs* instead of all this convoluted and strange ideas that in the end if one thinks it all the way through the end do not make any sense.

  • This is nothing new, already back in 1924-1925 there was a society of people who believed the Cosmos was the creation of the human mind.

      • The sameway tat the universe just appeared, with no creator, direction, etc. Except how did that hppen? And if the Universe is unending, ow did it exist or not to begin with? Above my paygrade.

        • There has to be a point when there has to be that "Someone" that is in charge of the creative process, if the Big Bang is true, (why not?) there had to be that "Person" that lighted the fuse, CREATED the fuse and the "bomb", put ALL the ingredients in the "bomb" in order for the universe to end up as it ended up. That Person/Entity/Deity/Someone was not created He is Who He Is (as He described Himself to Moses) and just exists. I don't think that is very difficult to comprehend. At least one has to think that there is a possibility that such a Entity exists.

          • Exactly. For me, all those questions are neatly, if loosely answered already (God didn't give b\me a detailed blueprint on the process, He just did it.) Logially it is the only thing that makes sense, regardless of what the scientific community would like to posit.

  • I say don't rip him - give this guy credit. In a rather twisted way, he took a step in the right direction. It's just that he is still kind of stuck in the box that most scientists are stuck in. But he popped his head out, and realized that a lot of explanations may lie outside of their current parameters. Let him run with this and see where it goes.

    Many years ago, Michelson tried to find the "static" that all motion is relative to, trying to go full circle on Einstein's theory of relativity. Unfortunately, he tried to find a static by measuring something that moves. I don't think you need to be a bonafide scientist to figure out that there may be some issues with that procedure.

    I give this guy props for considering the possibility that there may be a true static after all, although I don't know if he yet knows that he considered it.

    The one issue I have with the terminology is the use of the word "afterlife". "After" necessarily requires the consideration of time, and time is part of the physical universe. Where he's going is in the direction of positing that life is separate from the physical universe, and therefore not tied to time at all.

  • Do not try and bend the spoon...that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth... There is no spoon. You will see, it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

  • This explains a lot, when I can't remember crap anymore it's because my mind is out there somewhere....:)

  • So the whole universe was created by me. So it's all my space... and we know what happened to MySpace.

    Atheists will go to incredible lengths to avoid the notion of a Creator.

    • Atheists don't like the idea of anyone above them.

      I had this hilarious conversation with a worshipper of science:

      Him: "Flying saucers are utter nonsense."
      Me: "So there's no one else out there in the universe?"
      Him: "If we ever do find life, it'll just be microbes or algae. Why can't you be excited by that? That would be a great scientific discovery!"
      Me: "But will those alien microbes ever evolve into higher life forms?"
      Him: "Eventually, probably. That's how we got here."
      Me: "Then why couldn't alien microbes have evolved a million years ahead of us, and now they're here in flying saucers?"
      Him: "Well, that's just stupid."

      Nope. They don't want anyone or anything to be grander or smarter than they are.

      • I'm amused in the same way -- quite related -- that they will loudly insist that there just MUST be other life out there, even intelligent life, but then (as you say) deride the notion that aliens have been here.

        This will usually be followed by some self-loathing diatribe about how stupid humanity is and the "Why would they even bother coming here?" speech -- then carry on griping just as loudly that we need to spend more money exploring Mars.

        What's really funny and paradoxical is that "orthodox" science has absolutely zero evidence for life elsewhere*, yet there IS a certain amount of evidence for "flying saucers."

        *Probabilities and statistics, no matter how many zeroes follow a number, are NOT evidence, and neither is looking up into the sky and squealing "It's so BIG!"

        And sadly, there is only one term (I believe) in the famous Drake Equation which we know not to be "zero"; of course even ONE zero would make that the result too.

        • With Hubble (and a whole array of telescopes that are more powerful than decades in the past) we've discovered that planets are far more common than Drake ever suspected. I'm pretty sure his equation is old 'n' busted.

          • Quite the contrary, I'm sure the equation is just as valid as ever -- it's just that even with million times more planets out there than we ever suspected, we still have no way of asserting that ANY of its terms are more than zero, aside from the first two:

            R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
            fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
            ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
            fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
            fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
            fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
            L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

            I assume the first is known to some degree, and the second is unknown, but definitely in positive real numbers. As for the rest -- almost entirely unknown, as we only have 1 known instance (ourselves), and is entirely meaningless statistically.

      • Anecdotal evidence from a conversation with one idiot is how you judge all atheists?

        How Christian of you!

        • You reading comprehension needs some work. He made a statement about his experience with atheists and backed it up with an anecdote from his experience. We all recognized it, because may of US have heard the same kind of stupid shit falling out of themouths of atheists who for some reason have an issue about what I believe, while I don't really care what they bekleve. And you are judging all of us here based on that one post. Who said we were all Christians? Moron troll. Where do they get them? I mean is there a magazine ad somewhere "wanted, stupid people to annoy others?"

          • Speaking of the Che thread, has Ruben (che avi) been around lately?

            Check yo mail, and if you repost I didn't do s#!t, pulled it from Media Matters or OFA or something ;)

  • Is there any way I can reach that part of the multiverse where Harry Reid is a dung beetle? Oh, wait...that's this one...never mind.

  • I've always been afraid that it worked this way. All my old girlfriends will always be there to tell me what an irresponsible bum I am. Always and always.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015