Professor Robert Lanza believes his theory of “biocentrism” proves there is an afterlife. Or rather, that life never really ends. His theory combines biology with quantum mechanics, but does the theory actually connect to notions of the afterlife? Kim Horcher and Tim Frisch discuss.
Read more from CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57612676-71/scientist-quantum-physics-can-prove-theres-an-afterlife/
Read the article quoted from Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-IS-afterlife-claims-scientist.html
*****************************************************
SUBSCRIBE and you won’t miss a single Nerd Alert! http://dft.ba/-5yMt
ON TWITTER: @NerdAlertTYT @kimscorcher @timmyfrisch
Nerd Alert: Bringing you tech news, gaming, geek culture and more every day of the week with host Kim Horcher and friends. Part of the TYT Network of shows.
http://youtube.com/user/nerdalert
*****************************************************
Comments
Did I hear this correctly? Did she just say that the “double slit experiment” is philosophy? That it isn’t sound science? I hate when people that don’t have an advanced math or science degree that comment on quantum physics.
Good critical analysis. This professor seems to have read a lot of con-man Deepak Chopra.
Guys, you’re not exactly right here and you sound a bit ignorant. The scientist should not claim that he has proof, but the things you’re calling out as not making sense, actually do.
The double slit test is an interesting metaphor to relate to the existence of like. To put it another way, which hopefully makes more sense than what this guy said, think of like this:
There are an infinite number of possibilities in the universe. We each define our own timeline through observation. These timelines do not necessarily coincide with the timelines of other people. In this, we have what are considered parallel universes, or if you will, the paths we did not choose but were fully capable of choosing to take.
In stating there are an infinite number of probabilities, one most also understand the concept of probability. Probability is the likelihood that something will occur. So, for example, it is very likely, read: probable, that you will one day die. But, there is a very slight probability that you will simply pass beyond this world and your consciousness will continue on. There is also a very unlikely probability that you’ll sprout wings and learn to fly, but it’s still possible as it is not against the laws of physics to do so.
There’s a saying about Quantum Physics: If you think you understand it, you probably don’t. I would refrain from making commentary on the postulations of a scientist who makes his living studying a science which is very wrapped in the conceptualization of probabilities.
*typo in second sentence: “like” should be “life.”
You are spot on sangandongo even though Professor Lanza’s language/claim is a bit misleading. These two hosts could have come up with a viable rebuttal but apparently they don’t have a grasp of the subject matter and therefore maybe should’ve opted to rank on something else. I think perhaps one assumption Lanza may be making concerns 1st cause, is it material or is it like Amit Goswami assumes consciousness? Downward cause or upward cause and forgive me for being dualistic.
Whatever the case, it doesn’t necessarily and isn’t likely going to be a consciousness we can define or understand within the parameters of our own language. It’s most simple requirement would be that it’s threaded and is a direct consequence of our existence. I do understand that this line of thinking gets into the realm of philosophical postulation, but it also overlaps with physics in that it is a thought experiment.
Within the parameters of this thought experiment, we need to define rules. One such rule is that whatever any speculated outcome may be, probable or improbable, it must adhere to the laws of physics as we comprehend them. In other words, it may not make sense to us, but if it’s not technically breaking any immutable laws, then it “can” happen and therefore is “allowed.”
String Theory and M/Membrane Theory hypothesizes a multiverse, but it’s entirely untestable, unobservable, and therefore not actual “science” according to the scientific method. It is philosophy. String theory also requires 9 dimensions in order for the math to work. That should tell you something about how realistic it is. Even though some multiverse proponents try cramming the multiverse concept into quantum theory, the existence of a multiverse is not a part of quantum physics. The double slit experiment works because of quantum probability; not the multiverse, and not because of a “conscious” observer. Stop believing PBS Nova PoP-Sci superstars like Michio Kaku, Brian Green, Robert Suskind, and Stephen Hawking.
Kim Horcher, call me…
10+1 dimensions in string theory. 26+1 in bosonic. Also, it’s Leonard Susskind and to call him and most of the others pop-sci screams envy.
Sounds like you guys don’t quite understand the ramifications of *infinite* universes. That alone is all you need for ‘no death’ — because if there are infinitely many universes, anything that can happen does. So somewhere out there is an identical copy of you…until the day you die, and your copy doesn’t. But until that point, you both have the same memories, same experiences, same personality, same everything. And if there are truly an INFINITE number of universes, then SOMEWHERE there’s a version of you who, through some freak statistical anomaly, is immortal.
Infinite things get REALLY weird.
Bravo.
Hah, it’s almost like a cosmic darwinism. Every time in your life that you ‘damn near got yourself killed’ — and plenty of times that you didn’t — some copy of you in some universe just died. All your life this count of dead versions of yourself is slowly increasing. But there’s one version that always escapes. One version that just never dies. And somewhere out there is an entire universe of immortal gods — whose power comes entirely from pure random chance!
OK, that might be going a bit far…or is it not far *enough*…?
Wow! What’s amazing about your post is that I was just explaining the “copy” theory to my girlfriend minutes before I read this post.