Science proves afterlife ?

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by cherrynobel, Nov 16, 2013.

  1. cherrynobel

    cherrynobel Registered User

    25
    1
    1
    I just read an interesting article in yesterday's newspaper about the theory of biocentrism a part of Quantum physics which can prove the existence of afterlife as proposed by a quantum physicist of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, North Carolina named Robert Lanza .He said that Death is just a mere figment of our consciousness, that universe does not create life it is our mind which creates the universe. There is more information in the Wikipedia link below and I think so that he has written a book about it also.




    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_Universe
     
  2. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    FTFA...
    So, no. It offers no such proof. An interesting hypothesis? Sure, but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If we can't get beyond hypothesis, there is little that science can offer.

    Science is all about repeatable results. Yes, it might be argued that classical scientific method is inadequate to evaluate and understand such things. I say B.S. We simply lack the instrumentation and/or techniques to accurately observe and measure. This limitation, and the myopia it so often engenders, has been a challenge since humans first started pondering that which they did not understand. I have no doubt that some day, certain "truths" about quantum behavior will be common knowledge and that certain current "truths" will seem, on that day, as quaint as the notion of the Earth being the center of universe is to us today.
     
  3. nfasson

    nfasson Registered User

    74
    8
    8
    I'd highly recommend the book, Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near Death Experience, by Dr. Pim van Lommel. He's a cardiologist in the Netherlands who has done a tremendous amount of research on Near-Death Experiences. His approach is purely scientific and I think a very compelling argument for the possibility that consciousness is not so easily defined purely by the physical functioning of the brain.




    My Freemasonry
     
  4. Browncoat

    Browncoat Registered User

    192
    85
    28
    All science is based on accepted laws, research, experimentation, and systematic observation of those laws..all of which was developed by man.

    I suppose it's human nature to attempt to understand the universe and how and why things work. "Why" has been the universal question that encapsulates the human condition. That said, all science is fallible. Find once science that says it can prove ABC based on 123, and there are 10 others who can prove XYZ and 456 based on those same "facts". There is no real conclusive data in any science because none of it is irrefutable.
     
  5. Aeelorty

    Aeelorty Registered User

    98
    4
    8
    Exactly. Science is based around trying to falsify a hypothesis. Science does not offer "proof" but supporting data. Mathematics can create proofs because it is a different thing. Mr. Lanza may have supporting evidence but he doesn't have proof. Proof is a key word to look for to tell if someone is full of it.
     
  6. brother josh

    brother josh Registered User

    305
    30
    28
    To live gives great accomplishments but death brings forth a great journey


    My Freemasonry
     
  7. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,394
    133
    There are events in the world that are beyond the scope of current science. Experiences of deity and certain parts of near death experiences are among them. There is no guarantee that science will ever explain everything that happens in the universe.

    Hypothesis are measured against the results of current science. Propose something like this quantum view or strings theory that can not currently make predictions and the hypothesis gets called "not even wrong" because if it can't make predictions it does not fit into current science. Someday it might be otherwise.
     
  8. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,394
    133
    What this means is often misrepresented about science. Science is a process of endlessly refining mathematical models of reality. The current match and mismatch between science and reality is described with error bars - An estimate of how much reality and the science of today deviate from each other. That estimate includes historical trends. Each field and each well formed theory comes with error bars. In a sense the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is a theory has enough experimental history to have established error bars that bracket its domain.

    There are fields of science that describe the behavior of the universe well enough that it makes no sense to think they will ever be overturned. These fields have progressed to the point where they remain refine-able without any realistic expectation that they can be refuted. Inorganic chemistry has been in this status for a long time - The atomic theory of chemistry is never, ever, going to be overturned. We have photographs of individual atoms in crystals.

    There is science where the error bars are so small that field teaches to a precision it is indistinguishable from truth - inorganic chemistry. There is science that has been completely falsified - Epicycles. There is science that makes general predictions that have huge error bars where the field may well go the way of epicycles - dark energy. And there are fields everywhere in that range.

    When learning a science one needs to learn its mathematics to be able to make predictions using it. One also needs to learn the size of its error bars and the history of how they have been estimated. The basic advances happen where the error bars are large. Where the error bars are low what remains are details and technological advances.

    What science fields will and won't be the same several centuries from now? Inorganic chemistry has gotten to the point it isn't changing except in details and technology. Chemists now work with special relativity of the electrons in the orbitals of heavy metals to work out details of new chemical reactions.

    Name the field and study the history of that field and the trend can be estimated. This is something not understood by most in the general public. Some want all science to have about the same level of accuracy but it does not and never has.
     
  9. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,394
    133
    Many quantum mechanics experiments give different results depending on the approach of the observer. When I read the brief article in the wikipedia search it sounded to me like he substituted the word life for the word observer. It is an interesting idea until you think about how to test it. It's philosophy at the moment. Sort of like "We are the universe trying to understand itself" which can also be taken as a rewording of the same quantum principle of observers.
     
  10. nfasson

    nfasson Registered User

    74
    8
    8
    I read one discovery that there is a level of "noise" present in the universe that indicates everything is basically a hologram being projected from a two dimensional source.

    Which, to me, explains the Observation Effect in and of itself in terms of being able to more easily influence the results if the observed phenomena is just a projection.

    So, our real selves exist on another plane and everything we see around us is simply a construct. It boggles the mind.


    My Freemasonry
     
  11. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    In science, we are allotted tools according to our fields' ages. New fields get only crude, two-handed wooden mallets to bang out a model. Thus, a new field's model of a "horse" will be horribly crude. As a field matures, its tools get more refined and the models become better.
     
  12. cherrynobel

    cherrynobel Registered User

    25
    1
    1
    I agree.The theory of biocentrism is a hypothesis and has not much proof to back it but it should be noted that many theories which were considered almost close to fiction stuff's at their present time were later proved(for e.g.the theory that earth is round) and I strongly think that this theory will gather more and more proofs as their is advancement in science.
     
  13. Bro Darren

    Bro Darren Premium Member

    333
    20
    18
    I "saw" a movie about this, or did I?
    This movie discussed the concept that we are not really here walking around, meeting and greeting each others and that this all just happens in our unconscious minds.

    The first movie was so popular that it was followed up by 2 other movies in the same franchise and many more movies since then :)
     
  14. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    234
    63
    I read that same movie. It was called "The Cave", written by Plato. There was also a comic book: The Invisibles.
     
  15. SeattleMason0613

    SeattleMason0613 Registered User

    133
    5
    18
    Someone is always trying to prove they understand or figured the big question out


    Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App
     
  16. Bro Darren

    Bro Darren Premium Member

    333
    20
    18
    Science tries so hard to prove that "it" does not exist and every time they they think they get close, they discover that they could not be further from the truth!
     
  17. JohnnyFlotsam

    JohnnyFlotsam Premium Member

    485
    62
    28
    Absolute rubbish. There is a world of "conclusive" scientific data. Science is built upon the notion that the attempt to "refute" this or that assumption is a necessary rigor, but that hardly means that the process has never produced conclusive results.
     
  18. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    What happened to the "LIKE" button!!!!!!
     
  19. brother josh

    brother josh Registered User

    305
    30
    28
    If done correctly ( in this day and age it doesn't happen anymore ) when we die our body goes back to the place from whence it came there to be reinvested broken down as food for the land and trees that the animals eat that one day man will eat the animal and life continues even if u don't believe in an after life it has to at least give you some security of being that u are part of a bigger picture


    Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App
     
  20. Bro Darren

    Bro Darren Premium Member

    333
    20
    18
    I love how "Quantum Physics" proves that there is an afterlife according to the many news headlines on the net, yet NO ONE has mastered quantum physics as quantum physics is just a theory based science with no means to prove anything in its own spectrum.

    Yes, they can create a hypothesis that looks great on paper but the "evidence" used to support the theory can also be used to oppose it if the results are presented differently.

    I'm sure that one day mankind will master quantum physics, but i don't think that it will happen anytime soon.
     

Share My Freemasonry