For science buffs: New theory for life after death

[Matata]

Caveat -- You may be bored to tears. The link is to an article about a new Theory of Everything linking physics and biological science to propose the existence of a soul and life after death. There is no religion involved.

This is the first I've heard of Richard Lanza and his theory. I love physics and quantum theory although I don't understand much of it being a dunce at math. My reading is confined to books with titles such as "Physics for Dummies." I'm intrigued by the theory and will take a crack at reading Lanza's book.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

 

[kenny]

There has always been life after death ........... maggots, bacterium, etc. etc. etc.

Enjoy being here.
Make the best of it.

 

[Matata]

Lanza is proposing that consciousness exists intact after bodily death. I thought of you Kenny when I read the article. I recalled your comments (in discussions related to religion) that you believe in what can be proven (I'm recalling the gist of your comments and may lack total accuracy. I thought you also said you believe in scientific fact). Lanza's theory is not yet proven but it's based on existing scientific proofs. That's why I'm intrigued. I'm going to read the book with a bottle of Advil at hand because my brain is going to hurt trying to comprehend the whole thing. The possibility of eternal life as described in the article isn't necessarily a comfort to me, just an interesting idea.

 

[monarch64]

I wouldn't call myself a science buff, but I find theories having to do with life after death, the concept of multiple universes, even the concept of our universe being a virtual one absolutely fascinating.

Somewhat related: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ A 50/50 chance from THIS guy? Pretty bold.

I am always very cautious of ruling things out. Copernicus/Galileo, etc.

 

[Matata]

I wouldn't call myself a science buff, but I find theories having to do with life after death, the concept of multiple universes, even the concept of our universe being a virtual one absolutely fascinating.

Somewhat related: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ A 50/50 chance from THIS guy? Pretty bold.

I am always very cautious of ruling things out. Copernicus/Galileo, etc.

You might consider reading his book then because his theory has all those goodies in it.

 

[monarch64]

I wouldn't call myself a science buff, but I find theories having to do with life after death, the concept of multiple universes, even the concept of our universe being a virtual one absolutely fascinating.

Somewhat related: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ A 50/50 chance from THIS guy? Pretty bold.

I am always very cautious of ruling things out. Copernicus/Galileo, etc.

You might consider reading his book then because his theory has all those goodies in it.

Oh, Matata. Can't you just read it for me and serve it up here in small, easily digestible bites?
I jest. I'll look into ordering it but it may take me a few years to read it.

 

[Matata]

I wouldn't call myself a science buff, but I find theories having to do with life after death, the concept of multiple universes, even the concept of our universe being a virtual one absolutely fascinating.

Somewhat related: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ A 50/50 chance from THIS guy? Pretty bold.

I am always very cautious of ruling things out. Copernicus/Galileo, etc.

You might consider reading his book then because his theory has all those goodies in it.

Oh, Matata. Can't you just read it for me and serve it up here in small, easily digestible bites?
I jest. I'll look into ordering it but it may take me a few years to read it.

Me too. Maybe we could split up chapters between us and alternate those digestible bites.

 

[jordyonbass]

Philosophy stuff is right up my alley sometimes but I afford this the same kind of credibility as String Theory, Noah's Ark and so many other claims linking to the supernatural; the moment they have their stuff peer-reviewed, published and have won a Nobel Peace Prize then I will investigate those claims.

Until then we're just chasing Sasquatches

 

[missy]

I wouldn't call myself a science buff, but I find theories having to do with life after death, the concept of multiple universes, even the concept of our universe being a virtual one absolutely fascinating.

Somewhat related: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ A 50/50 chance from THIS guy? Pretty bold.

I am always very cautious of ruling things out. Copernicus/Galileo, etc.

You might consider reading his book then because his theory has all those goodies in it.

Oh, Matata. Can't you just read it for me and serve it up here in small, easily digestible bites?
I jest. I'll look into ordering it but it may take me a few years to read it.

Me too. Maybe we could split up chapters between us and alternate those digestible bites.

Thanks for sharing this Matata and I volunteer to share the reading with you guys if you would allow me to join you.

I am definitely going to read this but like Monnie it might take me a few years to get through it as my science days are far behind me. But I am hopefully up for the challenge. Will report back if/when I ever finish reading it.

 

[ksinger]

Caveat -- You may be bored to tears. The link is to an article about a new Theory of Everything linking physics and biological science to propose the existence of a soul and life after death. There is no religion involved.

This is the first I've heard of Richard Lanza and his theory. I love physics and quantum theory although I don't understand much of it being a dunce at math. My reading is confined to books with titles such as "Physics for Dummies." I'm intrigued by the theory and will take a crack at reading Lanza's book.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

Dang it Matata! I get juuuuuust to the point of clicking the Amazon "Hoover my wallet" button, and you try to add another book to my list??

I've got, "Canticle for Leibowitz", "Grass" (need to see if I read that years ago), and "The Left Hand of Darkness" in the cart already. I mean, come on, there's only so much I can do!

Actually, like Monnie, I'm going to let you read it, and if not deliver it back to me in digestible bullet points, at least tell me if you thought it was worth the money. Maybe by then I'll have made a dent in my backlog. Alas, I don't read in the great gulps of my youth anymore. More like sips. I'm currently working on "American Nations", by Colin Woodard. HIGHLY recommend. It's good for sipping, and a fun and engaging read, while being totally "Ah HA!" throughout.

 

[qubitasaurus]

Philosophy stuff is right up my alley sometimes but I afford this the same kind of credibility as String Theory, Noah's Ark and so many other claims linking to the supernatural; the moment they have their stuff peer-reviewed, published and have won a Nobel Peace Prize then I will investigate those claims.

Until then we're just chasing Sasquatches

Lol Jordy most string theory papers are peer reviewed and published. More recent advances in the field have given rise to anti-de-sitter conformal field theory correspondances. This is now used across a variety of areas of physics. It is an extremely powerful tool.

The precursor to string theory was the solution of the Calabi Yau conjecture. And this result has indeed recieved prizes of the type you mentioned .

By the way that top article in this thread gave me a good laugh. There is some good physics in the Everetian many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (physicists are very unhappy with the copenhagen interpretation that the wave function colapsed upon measurement, as this would mean the observer had a preferred role in actually creating a physical reality. Many physicists instead describe everything through unitary eolution on a higher hilbert space. Hence Everetian many worlds is extremely popular. But still contentious, i.e. problems with free will). Penrose likes the idea that quantum information persists in the brane. Most people don't hold this view because the brain is too high temperature and quantum effects are extremely fragile. Penrose also likes gravitational induced decoherence as an explanation for why most macrosopic systems dont seem to exist in superposition states accross two different spatial locations ect. His argument is pretty hand wavy though, I've read the papers.... The rest of the article just gets more and more speculative.

There is a cool argument for quantum immortality to do with post selection and Everetian many worlds shame the author does not seem to know about it.

The scientific american article was great though.

 

[ksinger]

Philosophy stuff is right up my alley sometimes but I afford this the same kind of credibility as String Theory, Noah's Ark and so many other claims linking to the supernatural; the moment they have their stuff peer-reviewed, published and have won a Nobel Peace Prize then I will investigate those claims.

Until then we're just chasing Sasquatches

Lol Jordy most string theory papers are peer reviewed and published. More recent advances in the field have given rise to anti-de-sitter conformal field theory correspondances. This is now used across a variety of areas of physics. It is an extremely powerful tool.

The precursor to string theory was the solution of the Calabi Yau conjecture. And this result has indeed recieved prizes of the type you mentioned .

From an entirely ignorant perspective (so speak slowly and use smaller words, 'K? ) - what are the near future chances of any of these theories generating a prediction that could actually be tested?

Remember, use small words. Dumb it down. Seriously. No "anti-de-sitter conformal field theory correspondances" allowed. It's early and my brain is melting hourly. Think of it as your exercise in making science palatable for the masses.

 

[qubitasaurus]

I am not sure what theories you are referring to? I guess Jordy mentioned string theory, so I will start there.

Honestly currently probably not high. People were looking very seriously for it about 4 years ago at CERN. There is a theory which goes hand in hand with string theory known as supersymmetry. This theory makes a remarkable prediction, that for each particle we currently know and have seen (for example an electron) there is another partner particle (another copy) we currently havent observed. People looked hard for these coppies but they didnt find them. I would currently put the probablities of supersymmetry (and string theory) as quite low.

Good physics often starts with trying to explain an effect we have observed but dont understand. There are a lot of things we dont understand, so who knows .

 

[arkieb1]

I don't claim to know jack about quantum physics or quantum consciousness and how it works but I read this fascinating article about a group of scientists in Silicon Valley that were working on similar theories except they believe that all of our thoughts or streams of conscious thoughts, memories and so on can be stored as data much like we store files on computers, and they are working with the idea that when the human body dies that you can either replant or regenerate those thoughts, ideas/memories etc that make us who we are (our souls I guess to a degree) and then put them into something else be that a robot or another body or way into the future regenerate another body for this downloaded form of consciousness of ourselves to live in as a host. This is being funded by billionaires in the tech Industry that essentially don't want to die and want to live for ever..... Scarily futurist but fascinating reading at the same time.

 

[ksinger]

I am not sure what theories you are referring to? I guess Jordy mentioned string theory, so I will start there.

Honestly currently probably not high. People were looking very seriously for it about 4 years ago at CERN. There is a theory which goes hand in hand with string theory known as supersymmetry. This theory makes a remarkable prediction, that for each particle we currently know and have seen (for example an electron) there is another partner particle (another copy) we currently havent observed. People looked hard for these coppies but they didnt find them. I would currently put the probablities of supersymmetry (and string theory) as quite low.

Good physics often starts with trying to explain an effect we have observed but dont understand. There are a lot of things we dont understand, so who knows .

Thanks. That one was very helpful. Since I can't make heads or tails of the minutiae of plain old physics anymore, let alone theoretical, I have to cut to the chase - is this testable? Is it on the cusp of revealing some new thing about the universe? If not, I can't waste my failing brain on it. Theoretical physics is simply too esoteric for me. And its very theoretical nature, means it attracts rather a lot of woo, which is certainly beyond any verification. Fun reading sometimes, admittedly, but not good science (the bones of which I DO get) by any measure.

Thanks for your posts!

 

[qubitasaurus]

Mmm depends what you mean. Most of these theories have observable effects (kind of like smoking guns) which we can search for.

The criticism of string theory is that it is non-falsifiable. Which is a complicated way of saying that it is difficult to rule the theory out. Suppose we don't observe any of these effects (so far we haven't). It is difficult to translate the lack of observed evidence into a conclusive statement that the theory isn't true.

Sorry first post was obtuse -- I was trying to find sift out the bits of the top article which might have been justifiable. All I could think was what a load of dribble, but it seemed non-constructive to say that.

 

[Tekate]

Caveat -- You may be bored to tears. The link is to an article about a new Theory of Everything linking physics and biological science to propose the existence of a soul and life after death. There is no religion involved.

This is the first I've heard of Richard Lanza and his theory. I love physics and quantum theory although I don't understand much of it being a dunce at math. My reading is confined to books with titles such as "Physics for Dummies." I'm intrigued by the theory and will take a crack at reading Lanza's book.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

THANK YOU Matata, that was fascinating... science is sort of a hobby of mine, since retiring I read a lot of the origins of homo homo sapien.. its really very fascinating, that in turn leads me to heaven and life after death..I've always felt that our sleeping consciousness has something to do with where we go.

Peace.

 

[Matata]

Mmm depends what you mean. Most of these theories have observable effects (kind of like smoking guns) which we can search for.

The criticism of string theory is that it is non-falsifiable. Which is a complicated way of saying that it is difficult to rule the theory out. Suppose we don't observe any of these effects (so far we haven't). It is difficult to translate the lack of observed evidence into a conclusive statement that the theory isn't true.

Sorry first post was obtuse -- I was trying to find sift out the bits of the top article which might have been justifiable. All I could think was what a load of dribble, but it seemed non-constructive to say that.

Thank you for this evaluation of the book. I'm still going to read it because the idea it presents appeals to me and I like to ponder concepts even if they are not fully formed or proved. All of science as we now know it was thought of as non-constructive pure dribble when the precepts were first presented. Since you appear to be in the field, you know that our ability to perceive and understand evolves and there's a lot of things we thought were dribble just a century ago we now acknowledge as true. They became truth to us because we evolved our capacity to perceive and understand them, not because the concepts were untrue to begin with.

 

[monarch64]

Ha! http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/were-not-just-making-sht-up-neil-degrasse-tyson-slaughters-anti-science-crank-at-press-event/

“The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you,” deGrasse Tyson replied.

“It has a duty to make sense to you,” said Liversidge.

DeGrasse Tyson responded, “It doesn’t give a rat’s ass how your five senses interact with this world.”

 

[ksinger]

Ha! http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/were-not-just-making-sht-up-neil-degrasse-tyson-slaughters-anti-science-crank-at-press-event/

“The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you,” deGrasse Tyson replied.

“It has a duty to make sense to you,” said Liversidge.

DeGrasse Tyson responded, “It doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ how your five senses interact with this world.”

I so adore that man. He can scathe like no other.

 

[qubitasaurus]

Mmm depends what you mean. Most of these theories have observable effects (kind of like smoking guns) which we can search for.

The criticism of string theory is that it is non-falsifiable. Which is a complicated way of saying that it is difficult to rule the theory out. Suppose we don't observe any of these effects (so far we haven't). It is difficult to translate the lack of observed evidence into a conclusive statement that the theory isn't true.

Sorry first post was obtuse -- I was trying to find sift out the bits of the top article which might have been justifiable. All I could think was what a load of dribble, but it seemed non-constructive to say that.

Thank you for this evaluation of the book. I'm still going to read it because the idea it presents appeals to me and I like to ponder concepts even if they are not fully formed or proved. All of science as we now know it was thought of as non-constructive pure dribble when the precepts were first presented. Since you appear to be in the field, you know that our ability to perceive and understand evolves and there's a lot of things we thought were dribble just a century ago we now acknowledge as true. They became truth to us because we evolved our capacity to perceive and understand them, not because the concepts were untrue to begin with.

That is ok -- when you are finished maybe you could read David Deustch's book the fabric of reality. I am guessing that at the end of the day Lanza will appeal to all proceases being unitary on some higher hilbert space (though I doubt he will use those words). Deutsch is probably the most famous physicist alive for holding this view.

You are right. I am traind as a theoretical particle physicist. But I work as a quantum information theorist (the new field Lanza has recently become interested in). I also work with complexity theorists so I get to hear my fair share of out of the box ideas. So perhaps I evaluate things differently.

 

[Matata]

Mmm depends what you mean. Most of these theories have observable effects (kind of like smoking guns) which we can search for.

The criticism of string theory is that it is non-falsifiable. Which is a complicated way of saying that it is difficult to rule the theory out. Suppose we don't observe any of these effects (so far we haven't). It is difficult to translate the lack of observed evidence into a conclusive statement that the theory isn't true.

Sorry first post was obtuse -- I was trying to find sift out the bits of the top article which might have been justifiable. All I could think was what a load of dribble, but it seemed non-constructive to say that.

Thank you for this evaluation of the book. I'm still going to read it because the idea it presents appeals to me and I like to ponder concepts even if they are not fully formed or proved. All of science as we now know it was thought of as non-constructive pure dribble when the precepts were first presented. Since you appear to be in the field, you know that our ability to perceive and understand evolves and there's a lot of things we thought were dribble just a century ago we now acknowledge as true. They became truth to us because we evolved our capacity to perceive and understand them, not because the concepts were untrue to begin with.

That is ok -- when you are finished maybe you could read David Deustch's book on decoding reality. I am guessing that at the end of the day Lanza will appeal to all proceases being unitary on some higher hilbert space (though I doubt he will use those words). Deutsch is probably the most famous physicist alive for holding this view.

You are right. I am traind as a theoretical particle physicist. But I work as a quantum information theorist (the new field Lanza has recently become interested in). I also work with complexity theorists so I get to hear my fair share of out of the box ideas. So perhaps I evaluate things differently.

I am green eyed with envy. I have no aptitude for math and had to resign myself to college degrees in English, Environmental Management, and Business Management, all of which are interesting to me but none invoke the passion I have for hard science.

 

[ksinger]

Mmm depends what you mean. Most of these theories have observable effects (kind of like smoking guns) which we can search for.

The criticism of string theory is that it is non-falsifiable. Which is a complicated way of saying that it is difficult to rule the theory out. Suppose we don't observe any of these effects (so far we haven't). It is difficult to translate the lack of observed evidence into a conclusive statement that the theory isn't true.

Sorry first post was obtuse -- I was trying to find sift out the bits of the top article which might have been justifiable. All I could think was what a load of dribble, but it seemed non-constructive to say that.

Thank you for this evaluation of the book. I'm still going to read it because the idea it presents appeals to me and I like to ponder concepts even if they are not fully formed or proved. All of science as we now know it was thought of as non-constructive pure dribble when the precepts were first presented. Since you appear to be in the field, you know that our ability to perceive and understand evolves and there's a lot of things we thought were dribble just a century ago we now acknowledge as true. They became truth to us because we evolved our capacity to perceive and understand them, not because the concepts were untrue to begin with.

That is ok -- when you are finished maybe you could read David Deustch's book on decoding reality. I am guessing that at the end of the day Lanza will appeal to all proceases being unitary on some higher hilbert space (though I doubt he will use those words). Deutsch is probably the most famous physicist alive for holding this view.

You are right. I am traind as a theoretical particle physicist. But I work as a quantum information theorist (the new field Lanza has recently become interested in). I also work with complexity theorists so I get to hear my fair share of out of the box ideas. So perhaps I evaluate things differently.

I am green eyed with envy. I have no aptitude for math and had to resign myself to college degrees in English, Environmental Management, and Business Management, all of which are interesting to me but none invoke the passion I have for hard science.

Both of you have me green with envy. Three degrees Matata? Sigh. (Ah well, regret is a waste) I have no real aptitude for math either, although through sheer bloody-minded determination, managed to make it all the way through differential equations in college, in my early quest to go into chemical engineering. It was a terrible uphill battle. Then a bunch of stuff happened and I ended up with a business degree, but worked the bulk of my career, in IT. A strange-ish path.

I was always more into chemistry. If I'd been smart, I'd have gotten a degree in that. Ah, well....life does tend to send us down odd and unexpectedly twisty roads that are not consciously chosen.

qubitasaurus, I'm sure you do evaluate thing differently. As in you CAN evaluate. I wouldn't know real from hooey in theoretical physics.

 

[Matata]

Both of you have me green with envy. Three degrees Matata? Sigh. (Ah well, regret is a waste) I have no real aptitude for math either, although through sheer bloody-minded determination, managed to make it all the way through differential equations in college, in my early quest to go into chemical engineering. It was a terrible uphill battle. Then a bunch of stuff happened and I ended up with a business degree, but worked the bulk of my career, in IT. A strange-ish path.

I was always more into chemistry. If I'd been smart, I'd have gotten a degree in that. Ah, well....life does tend to send us down odd and unexpectedly twisty roads that are not consciously chosen.

qubitasaurus, I'm sure you do evaluate thing differently. As in you CAN evaluate. I wouldn't know real from hooey in theoretical physics.

Chemistry I could do and I never understood why. LOL. No problem with those equations whatsoever. Yet it took me 2 tries to get through basic Algebra and I was wretched at Trig, Geometry, and Probability & Statistics. I became so phobic about math, I'd break out in a rash just walking by a math professor. It was around that time my advisor gently suggested I consider other majors.

 

[monarch64]

I refuse to state that I am inept at mathematics, because I'm not. Despite my grades, despite my noticeable shortcomings, I can still "do" maths.

Women grow up in a world skewed towards men being the ones who are "good at math." Then women (as girls) are made to feel like we "can't" be good at math. This is just not true.

I can "math" with the best of 'em given enough time. I understand chemistry and geometry and algebra, and even (gasp!) calculus and physics, given adequate time to study and respond in class. I am not "not good at math."

It pains me to see/hear women like the brilliant posters on this very thread speak of themselves so defeatedly. Of course you are good at math. You are not a dunce. You have every capability and you have just been lead to believe that you don't. Revisit math. You CAN do it.

*flounces down from soapbox. smashes box of chalk against aisle from one hand; flings dry erase markers from the other.*

 

[ksinger]

I refuse to state that I am inept at mathematics, because I'm not. Despite my grades, despite my noticeable shortcomings, I can still "do" maths.

Women grow up in a world skewed towards men being the ones who are "good at math." Then women (as girls) are made to feel like we "can't" be good at math. This is just not true.

I can "math" with the best of 'em given enough time. I understand chemistry and geometry and algebra, and even (gasp!) calculus and physics, given adequate time to study and respond in class. I am not "not good at math."

It pains me to see/hear women like the brilliant posters on this very thread speak of themselves so defeatedly. Of course you are good at math. You are not a dunce. You have every capability and you have just been lead to believe that you don't. Revisit math. You CAN do it.

*flounces down from soapbox. smashes box of chalk against aisle from one hand; flings dry erase markers from the other.*

Oh don't misunderstand, I did "do math", so obviously I could, maybe still could, although I'd have to start from 3rd grade again I suspect. But it was so hard for me. Other things came easily, math was a truly brutal slog for me, an enemy to be conquered, a mountain to be scaled. My husband has a friend who is GOOD at math, and he said the numbers almost danced, it made that much instant sense. Umm...no, no dancing numbers. The semester that did me in math-wise, was the one where I had differential equations, the second calc-based physics, statics and strengths of materials, and FORTRAN. I passed everything, but I was DONE. I was like, I can't DO this for a career - I need WORDS. Of course I ended up working in IT, in programming, so I ran away from a certain mode of thinking, but did come back somewhat.

So I'm not going to revisit math. It was something I conquered back in the day and I'm duly proud of that. But I found that when I'd reached that particular math pinnacle, I just really didn't have the will to claw my way up to the next level, which included linear algebra and more applied math classes. I guess I discovered I just didn't like it, even if I could do it, you know?

The only math I'm truly sorry I did not take, is statistics. So useful.

 

[jordyonbass]

I am not sure what theories you are referring to? I guess Jordy mentioned string theory, so I will start there.

Honestly currently probably not high. People were looking very seriously for it about 4 years ago at CERN. There is a theory which goes hand in hand with string theory known as supersymmetry. This theory makes a remarkable prediction, that for each particle we currently know and have seen (for example an electron) there is another partner particle (another copy) we currently havent observed. People looked hard for these coppies but they didnt find them. I would currently put the probablities of supersymmetry (and string theory) as quite low.

Good physics often starts with trying to explain an effect we have observed but dont understand. There are a lot of things we dont understand, so who knows .

I'm not so sure it's peer reviewed to the level of theories like germ theory and the theory of gravity - it may be peer reviewed with skeptical results, which is not what I mean when I say peer-reviewed.

I'm happy to look into it more but I always thought it was a 'theoretical field' and more a hypothesis than a bonafide, scientific theory.