article: Quantum Theory Proves That Consciousness Moves to Another Universe Afterdeat

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Quantum Theory Proves That Consciousness Moves to Another Universe After Death

A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“, published inthe USA, has stirred up the Internet, because it contained a notion thatlife does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever. The author of this publication, scientistRobert Lanza has no doubts that this is possible.

Beyond time and space

Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company. Before he has been known for his extensive research which dealt with stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.

But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since.

The theory implies that death simply does not exist. It is an illusion which arises in the minds of people. It exists 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. 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. That fits well with the basic postulates of quantum mechanics science, according to which a certain particle can be present anywhere and an event can happen according to several, sometimes countless, ways.

Lanza believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. These universes contain multiple ways for possible scenarios to occur. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness which migrated into this universe.

This means that a dead person while traveling through the same tunnel ends up not in hell or in heaven, but in a similar world he or she once inhabited, but this time alive. And so on, infinitely.

Multiple worlds

This hope-instilling, but extremely controversial theory by Lanza has many unwitting supporters, not just mere mortals who want to live forever, but also some well-known scientists. These are the physicists and astrophysicists who tend to agree with existence of parallel worlds and who suggest the possibility of multiple universes.Multiverse (multi-universe) is a so-called scientific concept, which they defend. They believe that no physical laws exist which would prohibit the existence of parallel worlds.

The first one was a science fiction writer H.G. Wells who proclaimed in 1895 in his story “The Door in the Wall”. And after 62 years, this idea was developed by Hugh Everett in his graduate thesis at the Princeton University. It basically posits that at any given moment the universe divides into countless similar instances. And the next moment, these “newborn” universes split in a similar fashion. In some of these worlds you may be present: reading this article in one universe, orwatching TV in another.

The triggering factor for these multiplying worlds is our actions, explained Everett. If we make some choices, instantly one universe splits into two with different versions of outcomes.

In the 1980s, Andrei Linde, scientist from the Lebedev’s Institute of physics, developed the theory of multiple universes. He is now a professor at Stanford University.

Linde explained: Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.

The fact that our universe is not alone is supported by data received from the Planck space telescope. Using the data, scientists have created the most accurate map of the microwave background, the so-called cosmic relic background radiation, which has remained since the inception of our universe. They also found that the universe has a lot of dark recesses represented by some holes and extensive gaps.

Full article at link: http://earthweareone.com/quantum-th...usness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

 

[swilow]

Wheres this proof? :D

I like the idea but its pretty badly written here and pretty misleading...

Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity. In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.

Ah okay, if you say so...

 

[rickolasnice]

Yeah and the title doesn't really match the theory..

So an almost infinite realities exist, some where you were never born, some where you're gay, some where you're insane.. Anyone remember any of what you did in those realities? Those feelings? Nope.. Because they're not your thoughts and feelings.

If the theory is true, the "you" in those realities stopped being you when it split from this one.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I think it means:

In situations where it is possible for you to either live or die, your consciousness will navigate that fork towards life.
Your own death is illusory, assuming that it is one of multiple possible outcomes including life, because you will never experience it.
We're dying all the time. But, from our perspective, we continue to live.

If you do something particularly dangerous. Say the odds are 1 in 10,000 that you live.
At the moment of death, let's make the maths convenient and say you die 9,999 times.
The only universe you'll be aware of is the universe in which you don't die.
So, no matter how dangerous the activity you will always live.
And - practically speaking - death becomes illusory.

I thought of this theory when I was binging on meth.
After toying with death for months, I was convinced that I was invincible.

If the multiverse theory is correct, then our life expectancy is much higher than the observable life expectancy of those around us.
But death will occur eventually. As you get older the statistical probability of death (in any situation) will increase.
Your numbers will thin, until - eventually - you're the last one.
You will only experience one death: your last.

 

[Keymaker]

Is that anything like the Dark Sucker theory?

You know... Light bulbs do not emit light. Rather they suck in the dark? I could go on about that but i'll let it sink in for a moment.

The topic of this thread is actually why I am here, in a round about way. I believe there is something to the theory. Not the multi plane crap, but the fact that the human consciousness exists in a different manor than the human body.
There appears (to me) to be a disconnect, and it shows at different times all through our lives.
Ever been raging mad, and an hour later wonder who the fuck you were? How about surgery? Wake up, and ask when it will be done?
the fellas that walk on hot coals, or the 100lb mom that lifts a car off her kid...

There's something to it but I'm not quite sure what... yet.

 

[Journyman16]

Nothing in the article, or for that matter in Lanza's work that is available on the net, proves any such thing. It is an interesting speculation, but he's on more solid ground when he talks bio-centrism, simply because the 'observer' importance in relativity and the necessity for it in quantum theory would tend to support the idea that a ToE needs Consciousness (or at least Awareness) to be complete.

There ARE some very strange things that go on - consciously choose to astral ravel and the first thing you get is an appreciation that we are more than a body. NDE's also give indications that there is something after death, and it's not really explained by the chemical effects a dying brain might give.

The inflating spheres idea sounds a bit like the Dynamic Steady State Universe concepts of cosmic cellular structure - worth a read if interested. It has quite a few solutions to things that are puzzling under the Standard Model of Cosmology (SMC) models. I'm not sure the hole(s) in the CMB qualify as evidence of other universes - thinking through the process under the SMC, I'd think the CMB would not be affected by a child universe nor would another universe block the background - if it DID, that universe would be accessible.

 

[swilow]

There ARE some very strange things that go on - consciously choose to astral ravel and the first thing you get is an appreciation that we are more than a body.

Perhaps such a phenomena ocurrs only in the brain, meaning it is absolutely a function of the body.

But who knows really, the consistency of certain phenomena across cultures and time-periods suggests that something else is happening. I tend to believe though that the brain can do way more then we acknowledge. I don't think its hard to imagine that the brain could be the only thing in existence, as it appears to have the ability to create every single other phenomena, sensory and otherwise (or at least, the brain appears integral to the experience or ocurrence of such phenomena).

NDE's also give indications that there is something after death, and it's not really explained by the chemical effects a dying brain might give.

The problem with this sort of correlation is that is a huge leap from saying chemical processes of the brain don't fully explain such experiences to inferring the existence of non-corporeal afterlife from these experiences. The brain appears to contain the software to parse 'reality' in such a way as to be instantly recognisable to us (through learning). Given the whole notion that we cannot say a tree makes a sound if it falls in the woods alone, its akin to saying that we cannot know anything without a sensory organ present. The brain is such an organ. If it has the power to create a convincing reality, surely it is able to create a convincing other-reality (and indeed does, with the assistance of certain chemicals).

NDE may suggest the existence of an afterlife OR it could indicate that we don't understand completely the chemical nature of the brain...

If anything, consciousness creates reality, not the other way around. Quantum theory reinforces this idea, by saying that the tree has both fallen and not fallen until its position or state has been observed. The brain is capable of engaging with reality in ways we do not understand; perhaps the afterlife we speak of is a sort of timeless state, and like crossing an event horizon, death would appear unending to an observer but to the experiencer, it is a real continuum of experience.

When tripping recently, me and a friend determined that it was impossible for either of us to show that reality did not come into existence only 3 seconds ago, with all memory/experience a backwards-created reverse history. The brain creates a compelling illusion of reality based on things like its electromagnetic sensing organs, which organise otherwise meaningless information into something 'coherent'. If the brain is clearly able to do this constantly, to create an integrated whole out of randomness, it makes me wonder just how much of a role it plays in everything, in a creative, not just receptive, manner.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Excellent post.

I particularly liked:

the consistency of certain phenomena across cultures and time-periods suggests that something else is happening

 

[Keymaker]

Quote:
"But who knows really, the consistency of certain phenomena across cultures and time-periods suggests that something else is happening. I tend to believe though that the brain can do way more then we acknowledge. I don't think its hard to imagine that the brain could be the only thing in existence, as it appears to have the ability to create every single other phenomena, sensory and otherwise (or at least, the brain appears integral to the experience or ocurrence of such phenomena). "


This is the basis of my thinking. Sort of the spring board to start from.


Quote:
The brain creates a compelling illusion of reality based on things like its electromagnetic sensing organs, which organise otherwise meaningless information into something 'coherent'. If the brain is clearly able to do this constantly, to create an integrated whole out of randomness, it makes me wonder just how much of a role it plays in everything, in a creative, not just receptive, manner."

This is the mechanical aspect that we all accept.
I believe the molecular level of the living brain is triggered by something non molecular. I just don't know what yet. Understood it is difficult to quantify anything non molecular...
There is a door (metaphorically speaking), and that is what I seek.

 

[Journyman16]

Th problem I have with the idea that it is all brain is multi-layered.

One is that for a brain to exist as it is, we need the body and the body needs the world and physics tells us the world isn't really there. Maybe physics is totally wrong but currently it looks reasonably solid (I like puns) on the idea that nothing is solid. If there is no evidence for anything other than brain, there is also no evidence for brain itself. When we get down to it we could easily just be awareness, fed a scenario directly (or creating it) that shows only appearance of reality with no substance at all except in our perceptions.

There's also biology counting against the brain as sole arbiter of reality. Cells all work in one specific way - a signal comes in and the cell does stuff.. The problem is, ALL cells work this way. So... that begs the question - how do we decide to do anything? Move an arm, have a thought, consider the brain - all these need initiation and cells can't do it.

There's also the field we can see in action when the brain is functioning. It is multilayered and quite complex and responsive - if the brain is paramount, what is the field doing?

Also, where do we go when unconscious? The brain shuts right down under anaesthetic but people still sometimes recall what has occurred in the theatre.

Why would a brain need to dream?

I think Minds are what brains do, aside from providing the switching gear to interact with the solid world. And I think Minds are the means by which Consciousness can interact and inter-react with reality.

As far as I can see, there are only 2 things which exist, consciousness and the universe, and the universe is, at best, an uncertain proposition. D told you I like puns...)

It seems to me the senses we use are limiters, ways to reduce what we perceive, and the brain is a part of that system. To me that offers a possible explanation for the glimpses and clues we get of a vaster world, a beyond-reality realness where connections happen and some can be overwhelmed by the inflow. It may be that hallucinogenics can take us there and the entities we meet while so engaged are consciousnesses beyond the limited world we are working our way through.

 

[Keymaker]

Quote: ( I haven't figured out the highlight quote system yet)

"I think Minds are what brains do, aside from providing the switching gear to interact with the solid world. And I think Minds are the means by which Consciousness can interact and inter-react with reality.

As far as I can see, there are only 2 things which exist, consciousness and the universe, and the universe is, at best, an uncertain proposition. (:D told you I like puns...)

It seems to me the senses we use are limiters, ways to reduce what we perceive, and the brain is a part of that system. To me that offers a possible explanation for the glimpses and clues we get of a vaster world, a beyond-reality realness where connections happen and some can be overwhelmed by the inflow. It may be that hallucinogenics can take us there and the entities we meet while so engaged are consciousnesses beyond the limited world we are working our way through".



We are on the same path. The "Mind" is something more than the molecular structure of the brain. Most of us accept this as an unproven / as of yet non provable truth.
I an on a path that is leading toward whatever DMT does as the inner workings of a lock that keeps us from knowing what the answer is. N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is (to me) the clue to the solution of our very core. What we are in effect.
The ancients knew this. The current peoples know this. My question that I seek an answer for is what is inside the core?
What fuels our mind? N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is there but why? Is that the fuel that creates us?

It opens new doors of thought... Are we the God that we seek?

It's like a puzzle where the solution is in plain sight. Just my thoughts on the topic.

 

[Birc0014]

I think it means:

In situations where it is possible for you to either live or die, your consciousness will navigate that fork towards life.
Your own death is illusory, assuming that it is one of multiple possible outcomes including life, because you will never experience it.
We're dying all the time. But, from our perspective, we continue to live.

If you do something particularly dangerous. Say the odds are 1 in 10,000 that you live.
At the moment of death, let's make the maths convenient and say you die 9,999 times.
The only universe you'll be aware of is the universe in which you don't die.
So, no matter how dangerous the activity you will always live.
And - practically speaking - death becomes illusory.

I thought of this theory when I was binging on meth.
After toying with death for months, I was convinced that I was invincible.

If the multiverse theory is correct, then our life expectancy is much higher than the observable life expectancy of those around us.
But death will occur eventually. As you get older the statistical probability of death (in any situation) will increase.
Your numbers will thin, until - eventually - you're the last one.
You will only experience one death: your last.

Ka-Blam....mind blown, I want Stephen Hawkings to respond to this post directly

 

[L2R]

the chances of your conception is more than just your parents having sex. they had to have had sex at precisely the right moment for the right sperm to fertilise. another sperm and it would not have been you. so given the butterfly effect, the proportion of potential universes in which you exist AT ALL would have to be utterly miniscule.

but then again if we are talking about true infinity then that doesn't matter. but then with infinity nothing at all matters.

 

[Birc0014]

Oh google why do you have to make so many brain pictures in my head compartment??

According to Hawking and Mlodinow, one consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics is that events in the past that were not directly observed did not happen in a definite way. Instead they happened in all possible ways. This is related to the probabilistic nature of matter and energy revealed by quantum mechanics: Unless forced to choose a particular state by direct interference from an outside observation, things will hover in a state of uncertainty.
For example, if all we know is that a particle traveled from point A to point B, then it is not true that the particle took a definite path and we just don't know what it is. Rather, that particle simultaneously took every possible path connecting the two points.
Yeah, we're still trying to wrap our brains around this.
The authors sum up: "No matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities."

 

[Birc0014]

And then if that wasn't enough it goes on...

If there is any "theory of everything" that can describe the whole universe, it is M theory, according to Hawking and Mlodinow. This model is a version of string theory, which posits that at the tiniest levels all particles are fundamentally little loops of string that vibrate at different frequencies. And, if true, all matter and energy would follow rules derived from the nature of these strings.
"M theory is the only model that has all the properties we think the final theory ought to have," the authors write.
One consequence of this theory is that our universe is not the only one – untold numbers of cousin universes exist with different physical laws and properties.

 

[Birc0014]

And then my personal favourite the "fuck you god theory"

One of the most talked-about assertions in the whole book is that we don't need the idea of God to explain what sparked the creation of the universe.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," Hawking and Mlodinow write.
Instead, the laws of science alone can explain why the universe began. Our modern understanding of time suggests that it is just another dimension, like space. Thus it doesn't have a beginning.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," they write. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

 

[Birc0014]

p.s sorry if this is pissing anyone off I am just cut and pasting this from

http://www.livescience.com/18035-stephen-hawking-book-physics.html

because I find it fascinating

 

[Birc0014]

Fuck me I cant wait till they run this bitch through a quantum computer and find out the answer is 42

 

[ForEverAfter]

Not a big deal, but it's easier for other members to navigate threads if you don't make so many consecutive posts.
If you want to add something, within minutes of posting, just edit your original post.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," they write. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

This means basically nothing... or, at least, there's no logic present in what you quoted.
I don't care if they are Nobel-prize winning scientists, they've never observed spontaneous creation.
At this point, it is absolutely impossible to make a definitive scientific statement about the origins of the universe.

Gravity doesn't imply that there is no God, and - even if it did - spontaneous creation may be an act of God for all we know.

the chances of your conception is more than just your parents having sex. they had to have had sex at precisely the right moment for the right sperm to fertilise. another sperm and it would not have been you. so given the butterfly effect, the proportion of potential universes in which you exist AT ALL would have to be utterly miniscule.

but then again if we are talking about true infinity then that doesn't matter. but then with infinity nothing at all matters.

Yeah, fractions of infinity are confusing, because - on a basic mathematical level - anything divided by infinity is infinity.
Infinity can, however, "contain" other infinities.

According to basic maths:
The probability of your conception divided by infinity is infinity.
The probability of another sperm being successful is also infinity.
In an infinite uni/multiverse, therefore, there is no such thing as "chance".
So: you are just as likely to exist as you are to not exist, because both will happen.

But, it's not that simple.

To make it more confusing, there are different "sized" infinities.
For a smaller infinity (8a) to exist within a larger infinity (8b), the subset needs less variables.
As time goes on, not only from the moment of conception, but also every moment, the infinite possible outcomes of my life are reduced in terms of variability... while remaining infinite.
Although, the reduction in variability from the moment of conception is, perhaps, more significant than the reduction of variability at another point in time.
(If that makes any sense.)

...

You know those moments in dreams that don't make any sense, like when you encounter someone long-dead... and you consciously register, "is this real"?
I feel like we're approaching that with math and science. The more we discover, the less sense it all makes.
Fractions of infinity and quantum entanglement are like the dead uncle in our dreams.
Except, with science, we can't say: "is this real?"

...

Here's a simple mathematical example of one infinite subset existing within another, within another, each one with more variables than the last.

natural numbers < whole numbers < integers
(1,2,3,4,5...) < (0,1,2,3,4...) < (...-1,0,1...)

 

[L2R]

Yeah, fractions of infinity are confusing, because - on a basic mathematical level - anything divided by infinity is infinity.
Infinity can, however, "contain" other infinities.

According to basic maths:
The probability of your conception divided by infinity is infinity.
The probability of another sperm being successful is also infinity.
In an infinite uni/multiverse, therefore, there is no such thing as "chance".
So: you are just as likely to exist as you are to not exist, because both will happen.

But, it's not that simple.

To make it more confusing, there are different "sized" infinities.
For a smaller infinity (8a) to exist within a larger infinity (8b), the subset needs less variables.
As time goes on, not only from the moment of conception, but also every moment, the infinite possible outcomes of my life are reduced in terms of variability... while remaining infinite.
Although, the reduction in variability from the moment of conception is, perhaps, more significant than the reduction of variability at another point in time.
(If that makes any sense.)

i think two bits of clarification are required here.
1. you can't by definition have comparable infinities, whether one being conceptually inside another or not. there's no way to distinguish between them since they have no outer edges, nor inner planck. infinities are like highlanders, there can be only one.
2. with the infinite, anything possible becomes inevitable. the only limitations would be contextually. for instance, there's never going to be a parallel universe exactly like ours that suddenly allows unaided human flight. the laws in each universe would have to evolve to that point. whilst there may be infinite branches in total, each moment can only spawn so many branches.