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

darkorange

symptomoftheuniverse

darkorange

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Awesome, this is exactly what I believe and hearing it from one of the "most important" scientists in the world only cements my opinion. We as the observer create the universe around us through experience.

S&F.

That notion suggests every single individual creates his unique reality. Then how come we all share same reality?

Thank you.

somewhere else at this moment in time does not exist. We observe things like they were. We do not share the same reality ,we realise what is observed.
When the first pictures from mars came back all humans saw the same images. Did all humanity together decide what mars looked like? Or was mars like it is? If humans created their own reality then who decides what unseen images look like?

I understand that we interpret the real world around us differently. That is not the question I am asking.

OPs article is scientific in nature and interesting as to how wave function is getting collapsed to materialize into reality, visible picture from probability factor. That is my quest. What you say is holistic outlook into this world. Not what OP message was trying to call.

Thanks.

wave function collapse is complete tosh. Who decides what unseen images looklike? The person who developes it or something else?

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


A camera is still an observer, it's an extension of consciousness, albeit with no self-awareness or free-will. We never know what a picture will look like until we observe it.

sulaw
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

While I don't disagree with your response oh wise superfrog

we discussed the single scientist already. To that degree I will re-iterate.

Did Darwin as a single scientist looking to prove his theory of evolution receive slack in the begining? Was his work not criticized as "misleading"? Especially in the religious communities? The fact remains that a single person can push a "theory" to the point other scientists start helping, via whatever experiments, mathematical equations (which math doesn't lie right?)

I actually do believe in evolution as well, just well... I don't know. NO fairy tales involved, no religious dogma attached, I never believed it the way it's stated. Seems just as limiting as any dogmatic belief system. I digress I'm going off topic.

As far as fictional literature. Sure, why not. Alternate Realities/Dimensions are fictional too but scientists can mathematically prove they are "possible", so conciousness moving forward should be deemed so as well... I understand

Sorry, it just struck me as often in topics like this I read 'scientists' and whole topic is about view of single scietist and most of scientific world disagree with him. I agree with your point about Darwin in his time, but difference is that Darwin brings something to the table that people can validate, where here we have pure speculation, mostly 'it could happen'. In my opinion, this is not far from: 'God could exist'. Both claims are something we can't verify or test.

If there is something more then 'cold be that', and more scientists repeat the same experiment, I would accept it. As of right now, it is just far fetched and opinion of scientist with nice credentials. As I have already said, it is sad that he is unable to provide more proof for his claims.

symptomoftheuniverse

darkorange

symptomoftheuniverse

darkorange

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Awesome, this is exactly what I believe and hearing it from one of the "most important" scientists in the world only cements my opinion. We as the observer create the universe around us through experience.

S&F.

That notion suggests every single individual creates his unique reality. Then how come we all share same reality?

Thank you.

somewhere else at this moment in time does not exist. We observe things like they were. We do not share the same reality ,we realise what is observed.
When the first pictures from mars came back all humans saw the same images. Did all humanity together decide what mars looked like? Or was mars like it is? If humans created their own reality then who decides what unseen images look like?

I understand that we interpret the real world around us differently. That is not the question I am asking.

OPs article is scientific in nature and interesting as to how wave function is getting collapsed to materialize into reality, visible picture from probability factor. That is my quest. What you say is holistic outlook into this world. Not what OP message was trying to call.

Thanks.

wave function collapse is complete tosh. Who decides what unseen images looklike? The person who developes it or something else?

There is no unseen images. Just a mess of waves, like you would throw hundred stones into the lake and watch patterns the impact created. Out of this pattern your eye, catching the instance of it, creates concrete images, like rapid snap shots.

I can go on but this is not what we discuss here. You are thinking and asking right questions thought.

cheers

reply to post by SuperFrog


I totally accept your opinion dear superfrog

I understand where your coming from as well. Adversely, this is why I'm keeping a "Creator" out of the thread. As that's just a long winded no win debate for anyone. However, conciousness is proovable, your concious mind rebutles to mine and we both interpret differently. Anyway~

Keeping with the hologram and conciousness moving forward after said death, I truelly hope that other scientists will follow suit and "whatever madness they use" be it mathematics, experiments of some kind, to solidify that which is postulated now, not as fact but theory by said scientist of this thread to further our own knowledge of the "Great Unknown". It would open more doors than close, I feel.

The question is, how do you "test" conciousness... It's a dilly of a pickle.

As always dear superfrog, it's always a pleasure talking with you

reply to post by AnoodleJ


That quantum level (the teensy-teensy weensy) is weird, but your assertion that weird quantum effects cannot happen on "our" level of the middling big begs the question, "Just where is the demarcation between the wee and enormous?"

Where is that hypothetical/metaphorical line in the sand that says "Quantum effects cannot happen here, in our big scale! But they CAN happen over there."

The decoherence explanation does attempt to explain the difference in big and small, but where o' where is the little border between the two realms... one weirder than vegan meatloaf, the other as normal as... tax fudging by the super rich? Pooping after coffee and whole grains? Well, however one defines normal, then insert metaphor.

But where is that line between the two? And if it fluctuates, then how much, when and why? And could it not fluctuate so wildly as to have a widget from dimension X pop into a cocktail soiree' in Westchester?

It's easy to explain death.

Try to remember how you felt the year before you were born.

Nothing right?

There was no pain, no suffering, nothing - plain old nothin'!

And the day/month/year after your death will feel exactly the same.

JustTheMan
It's easy to explain death.

Try to remember how you felt the year before you were born.

Nothing right?

There was no pain, no suffering, nothing - plain old nothin'!

And the day/month/year after your death will feel exactly the same.

I used to think so too. Then I left my body and came back again. It took a surprisingly long time to get used to being in a body again, let me tell ya.

Without even bringing science into it, when my brother passed away very suddenly in June 2013, I remember immediately seeing his soulless body and thinking, his shell is still there, but the soul that occupied the shell has obviously gone somewhere else. This was immediate thought upon seeing his body.
I can't say that his soul has gone to a different Universe, but I can say it has gone somewhere, and ours is only one of many Universe's, so I cannot rule it out either.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


I'm not sure. It might be just a matter of physical states of existence being pretty well locked in at this point because of the definitions or constants that were built into the universe by the first observer. An observer who I am guessing came along well before we did.

Because of those constants there are only very specific 'likely' ways that something can exist. Mars followed a very defined evolutionary path because of this. It exists in a universe that determined early on how it could likely (likeliness bordering on certainty) evolve. So when we see the first images of mars, yeah, there is a block of atoms here, and a block of atoms there that *could* appear as a leprechaun riding a turtle to some observer, but will almost certainly be just a rock. Why? Because the laws of the universe we live in are aligned in such a way that it is statistically more likely (much much much much much more likely) that the crust of mars will be littered with rocks rather than leprechauns riding turtles.

So we all see rocks . . . rocks that have been shaped and colored by the limits of how rocks can be shaped and colored on Mars given the universe it evolved in. Meaning we all basically see the same rock. It's just probability.

I think you can take this argument to an extreme by saying nothing exits at all until we observe it, therefore we should all observe different things. But if you dial it back a ways, and say that 'something' already exists (like a group of atoms that make up Mars) and say that its existence is shaped by the laws of the universe it evolved in, then from a probability standpoint, it is very likely to look the same to almost every observer in the universe.

But like I said, I'm not sure.

You never move.
The scenery just changes.

Lay down tonight in your bed and stay there all night - notice that you get to see may dream scenes while staying still.

reply to post by BlueMule


That thing we call a body is indeed a facilitator to conduct what we call life .Just like a car is a facilitator that we may travel quickly . The body can be a prison for some people who are trapped in a paralyzed or vegetative state . I believe as long as the body lives it constrains the soul within it . This body is required to live in this reality where time rules . The Global Elite believe that they have found the answer to living much longer and maybe immortality . Good luck on that one .
Funny thing is that science unaware is moving in the direction of the biblical explanation . Aliens , extraterrestrial visitation , ancient civilizations that built what we could not today . In the last ten years scientist find the soul . God would be an extraterrestrial by any definition . How advanced man was before the flood ? We don't know . What signs of our civilization would remain to be discovered by someone if we lived before the flood ? All questions we can only speculate about .
I do believe man has a soul and it can not be destroyed .

reply to post by SecretGoldfish

The laws of probibility says that 50 years ago the probability of you making your last post was 0000000000000000000.1 chance. But im not sure aswell.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse

 

A camera is still an observer, it's an extension of consciousness, albeit with no self-awareness or free-will. We never know what a picture will look like until we observe it.

is that we or the first person to see it.

SimonPeter
reply to post by BlueMule

 

That thing we call a body is indeed a facilitator to conduct what we call life .
I do believe man has a soul and it can not be destroyed .

Indeed. Our soul's experience in this physical realm is through the vessel that is our body. Upon death of that vessel our soul or consciousness is released back to where it came
But science doesn't like the idea of a soul because it can't be tested or "observed"...

reply to post by purplemer


Thanks for sharing, this idea was one I had for a while since studying the effects of consciousness and quantum theory.

Consciousness is energy and even thought has a measurable effect through EEG machines. It even effects matter to some degree, e.g. in the double slit experiment. We all know about conservation of energy. So why wouldn't it continue to exist without a body?

Human consciousness I think is the last frontier before we really learn, as a species, our place and purpose. As of now I view consciousness as synonymous with "soul" and, as Einstein put it, quantum physics (entanglement in particular) is "spooky". We really don't know much about it yet. Or, entirely, the effect our consciousness has on quantum-level reality.

you guys talk about cautiousness, dimensions, multi universe what ever... but what is this cautiousness, what do allegedly moves if we die??

www.youtube.com...
1h29m54s may be to long for the most of you, but if you take this time and watch this video, maybe you will understand what this thing we call cautiousness really is and than understand there is nothing to move anywhere

rickymouse


Our consciousness could just get absorbed into the consciousness of the planet. It is all energy.

I've been moving to thinking that way. The thing I wonder is whether there is a sense of individuality. Probably my ego wondering that because if there is no sense of identity or individuality or sense of self what's the sense? I've concluded if that is the case then it just tends to make this moment all the more precious and sacred right? I see our individual brains being receivers of the Shumann resonance and we act accordingly in relation to the specific physiology of each particular brain. Our human brains are tuned to the human resonance. Or maybe it is just one frequency in a range that is picked up by other living species and maybe even causes changes in dna. I'm sure the whole universe is vibrating.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


Right. But here we are 50 years in the future, and I have experienced life in such a way that it was likely I would make the post I just made.

So you read that post.

It didn't materialize out of the blue, it resulted from a long string of events coming before. Just like a mass of atoms on the surface of mars have been shaped by eons of events before it is imaged/viewed for the first time. Difference being those pictures from Mars have become very limited in the scope of what they can show, from a probability standpoint, based on basic laws in this universe.

So the real surprise would be if anyone saw something different in a picture from Mars, not that we all see the same thing. Whether it is the camera viewing it for the first time and collapsing those probability functions or a conscious observer later probably doesn't matter. I would expect the same result either way honestly if the underlying assumptions are right.

Pretty old really. not this guy, but the concept itself. Not speaking about religion either, but rather the science of it all.

"It will remain remarkable, in what ever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality."

-Eugene P. Wagner. Nobel Prize winner and one of the leading physicists of the 20th century

The double slit experiment is a mind blower overall. Schrodinger also furthered the mind exploding with his satisfactory answer to it all (which of course also tilted our reality) that the world is simply potential until consciously observed.