Soul becomes part of Universe

[+ouija ouija]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2225190/Can-quantum-physics-explain-bizarre-experiences-patients-brought-brink-death.html

From the article: 'Near-death experiences occur when the soul leaves the nervous system and enters the universe, claim two quantum physics experts.'

'It is held that our souls are more than the interaction of neurons in the brain. They are in fact constructed from the very fabric of the universe and may have existed since the beginning of time'.

WOW!!

[+OverSword]

Physisicts are coming up with alot of theories that give more credence to religious or esoteric beliefs these days.

[Imaginarynumber1]

It's an interesting idea, but until a soul can be show to even exist it's just that; an idea.

[sepulchrave]

Only one of the scientists is a ``quantum physics expert''. The other is a doctor, and an anesthesiology professor.

Both Hamerhoff and Penrose have been collaborating for quite some time on the Orch-OR model of conciousness. This theory is definitely fringe, and widely regarded as incorrect, but at least Hamerhoff and Penrose provide a clear account for their theory and provide quantitative calculations (I wish every fringe theorist would follow their lead!).

In my opinion, this addition to Orch-OR is even more bogus: in the article Hamerhoff suggests that when the heart stops the quantum entanglement of the mind is lost (a bit of a stretch, in my mind; how does the lack of a relatively high-pressure, high-temperature flow of viscous fluid break a large-scale electromagnetic entanglement) but then when the heart is restarted (i.e. by a paramedic) the quantum entanglement somehow returns?

How in the world do you re-entangle a complex state, and make sure you re-entangle it in the same way it originally was? (People whose hearts stop momentarily rarely return with absolutely no memories or a completely different personality.)

I am interested to see if Roger Penrose (you know, the one who actually knows quantum mechanics) supports this idea. Most of the recent developments in Orch-OR seem to be led by Hamerhoff, I haven't heard much from Penrose on the subject.

[Render]

Hmmm...it's something worth to think about, sure. But it is a bit regrettable to use terms like "soul". Of course the average population immediately links this to religion when reading this.

Also:

The whole basis for pseudo science exists out of ppl being experts in one field and then claim themselves to be experts in an entirely different field, and they then use all sorts of fancy scientific and/or medical terms to back up the pseudo science. The term "quantum" is a very popular one in mysticism these days.

Arthur Conan Doyle (creator of Sherlock Holmes) believed Houdini had paranormal powers instead of just performing magic tricks. He lost his friendship with him because he kept insisting on it. He also insisted to the world that elves were real.

Richard Feynman, nobelprize winner in Physics, believed Uri Geller had paranormal gifts. Because he reasoned as many professionals do: "Im very intelligent, so if I can't see that Geller is performing a trick then it must be paranormal and there is no other way around it."

Bobby Fisher, genius chessplayer, found the 9/11 attack a wonderful thing and idolised Hitler. He believed the Protocolls of Zion was an authentic document.

Frank Tipler, brilliant professor in Physics, is convinced that he mathematically and scientifically proved that there is a God beyond any doubt.

Etc...

Scientists have to be really careful when crossing fields or trying to merge them.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Render

[Ashotep]

When we die maybe we just go to a higher plain of existence and that's the reason for ghost sightings. I don't know but after seeing a ghost I feel there is more to it than just dieing and that being it.

[Emma_Acid]

Physisicts are coming up with alot of theories that give more credence to religious or esoteric beliefs these days.

Only if you take everything the media tells you at face value and refuse to do any proper academic reading of your own. At their basic level, there is nothing in modern physics that "gives credence to religious or esoteric beliefs".

Although it does make me smile when people who are generally pro-spiritual and anti-science flock to defend any given scientist when their discoveries happen to correlate vaguely with the individual's new age beliefs.

[Cybele]

A topic like this hardly belongs in the Science section of the board.

[JamesThomas]

How can we truly ever be apart or separate from the universe?

We only foolishly think and image that we are or can be.

[+OverSword]

It's an interesting idea, but until a soul can be show to even exist it's just that; an idea.

There is actually a loss of 2 grams (or some such miniscule wieght) at the moment of death, so it's quite possible that wieght is the sould exiting the flesh.

[+OverSword]

Only if you take everything the media tells you at face value and refuse to do any proper academic reading of your own. At their basic level, there is nothing in modern physics that "gives credence to religious or esoteric beliefs".

Although it does make me smile when people who are generally pro-spiritual and anti-science flock to defend any given scientist when their discoveries happen to correlate vaguely with the individual's new age beliefs.

I'm reffering to things such as multiple universes existing side by side, time, despite how we perceive it, all happening simultenously, and many other things postulated by theoretical physicists. Oh ye of little imagination, I weep for your narrow perception.

[Imaginarynumber1]

There is actually a loss of 2 grams (or some such miniscule wieght) at the moment of death, so it's quite possible that wieght is the sould exiting the flesh.

21 grams, and that is a myth. There was a doctor that tested his idea in the early 1900's (Late 1800's?) but his results has never been able to be repeated and out of six tests, most had to be thrown out. He methodology and his results were flawed.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

[+OverSword]

21 grams, and that is a myth. There was a doctor that tested his idea in the early 1900's (Late 1800's?) but his results has never been able to be repeated and out of six tests, most had to be thrown out. He methodology and his results were flawed.

http://www.snopes.co.../soulweight.asp

I could swear that this was just confirmed on multiple occassions a few years ago. Seems like I watched a life after death program where they interviewed the doctor that did the research. I guess you can't believe everything you see on TV.

[+ouija ouija]

It's an interesting idea, but until a soul can be show to even exist it's just that; an idea.

Yup, that's why it's called a theory at the moment

Both Hamerhoff and Penrose have been collaborating for quite some time on the Orch-OR model of conciousness. This theory is definitely fringe, and widely regarded as incorrect, but at least Hamerhoff and Penrose provide a clear account for their theory and provide quantitative calculations (I wish every fringe theorist would follow their lead!).

In my opinion, this addition to Orch-OR is even more bogus: in the article Hamerhoff suggests that when the heart stops the quantum entanglement of the mind is lost (a bit of a stretch, in my mind; how does the lack of a relatively high-pressure, high-temperature flow of viscous fluid break a large-scale electromagnetic entanglement) but then when the heart is restarted (i.e. by a paramedic) the quantum entanglement somehow returns?

How in the world do you re-entangle a complex state, and make sure you re-entangle it in the same way it originally was? (People whose hearts stop momentarily rarely return with absolutely no memories or a completely different personality.)

'Widely regarded as incorrect' is a rather vague phrase, isn't it? not factual.

With regard to the quantum entanglement returning, I picture it as a sort of netting which would stretch to a position outside of the body without any of the component parts moving in relation to each other. Presumably if you had only just died, the 'netting' would still be very close to your body, only just outside it, so that if your heart was then shocked into working again, the 'netting' would not have to move far to be back in place.

Also:

The whole basis for pseudo science exists out of ppl being experts in one field and then claim themselves to be experts in an entirely different field, and they then use all sorts of fancy scientific and/or medical terms to back up the pseudo science. The term "quantum" is a very popular one in mysticism these days.

Arthur Conan Doyle (creator of Sherlock Holmes) believed Houdini had paranormal powers instead of just performing magic tricks. He lost his friendship with him because he kept insisting on it. He also insisted to the world that elves were real.

Richard Feynman, nobelprize winner in Physics, believed Uri Geller had paranormal gifts. Because he reasoned as many professionals do: "Im very intelligent, so if I can't see that Geller is performing a trick then it must be paranormal and there is no other way around it."

Bobby Fisher, genius chessplayer, found the 9/11 attack a wonderful thing and idolised Hitler. He believed the Protocolls of Zion was an authentic document.

Frank Tipler, brilliant professor in Physics, is convinced that he mathematically and scientifically proved that there is a God beyond any doubt.

Etc...

Scientists have to be really careful when crossing fields or trying to merge them.

The rest of your post is a bit of a red herring, isn't it? It doesn't relate to the content of the article at all.

Although it does make me smile when people who are generally pro-spiritual and anti-science flock to defend any given scientist when their discoveries happen to correlate vaguely with the individual's new age beliefs.

Why does this amuse you? Surely it's natural to be drawn to something that expands on your ideas and beliefs, and hopefully, if one is truly open minded, one will be interested in articles that claim to disprove them too. The more you read about your interests, the more you debate them, the easier it is to sort out the 'wheat' from the 'chaff'. At least you used the word 'generally'!

[Imaginarynumber1]

I could swear that this was just confirmed on multiple occassions a few years ago. Seems like I watched a life after death program where they interviewed the doctor that did the research. I guess you can't believe everything you see on TV.

They had it on that Dark Matters show on the science channel, but it's just a bunch of crap. There's no truth to the claim at all.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Yup, that's why it's called a theory at the moment

A theory is something that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation. This is just a hypothesis. And a stupid one, at that.

[+ouija ouija]

A theory is something that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation. This is just a hypothesis. And a stupid one, at that.

A theory is: 'a supposition or system of ideas explaining something', 'a speculative view', 'the sphere of abstract knowledge or speculative thought'.

[Copasetic]

A theory is: 'a supposition or system of ideas explaining something', 'a speculative view', 'the sphere of abstract knowledge or speculative thought'.

No, in science a theory is much more than that. A theory is something that has been tested and has an incredible amount of weight behind it. An "ahh shucks" theory, as used by laymen is not a theory in science. Imaginarynumber1 is correct, this isn't a theory.

[+ouija ouija]

No, in science a theory is much more than that. A theory is something that has been tested and has an incredible amount of weight behind it. An "ahh shucks" theory, as used by laymen is not a theory in science. Imaginarynumber1 is correct, this isn't a theory.

To be fair, the article is secondhand(written by a journalist). Perhaps the guys involved don't call it that.

[+ouija ouija]

A theory is something that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation. This is just a hypothesis. And a stupid one, at that.

I think it's rather sad that you view it as 'stupid'. I think it's exciting that ideas like this are put in the public domain to be discussed. The people who came up with the idea obviously see something that is worth spending time investigating. If we don't question and discuss and open our minds a little we'll just sink into a rut.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I think it's rather sad that you view it as 'stupid'. I think it's exciting that ideas like this are put in the public domain to be discussed. The people who came up with the idea obviously see something that is worth spending time investigating. If we don't question and discuss and open our minds a little we'll just sink into a rut.

Let create pointless hypothesis about Unicorns, while we're at it. How about fairies and angels, too?

[+ouija ouija]

Let create pointless hypothesis about Unicorns, while we're at it. How about fairies and angels, too?

Now you're just being silly!

[sepulchrave]

'Widely regarded as incorrect' is a rather vague phrase, isn't it? not factual.

Fair enough. Orch-OR is widely regarded as incorrect within the physics community since, of the 20 testable predictions of Orch-OR, several of those that have been tested have been shown to be false (here, here, and here), and I am not aware of any that have come back positive.

However direct testing is complicated.

With regard to the quantum entanglement returning, I picture it as a sort of netting which would stretch to a position outside of the body without any of the component parts moving in relation to each other. Presumably if you had only just died, the 'netting' would still be very close to your body, only just outside it, so that if your heart was then shocked into working again, the 'netting' would not have to move far to be back in place.

(Emphasis mine.) This kind of illustrates my point. If someone doesn't really understand what quantum entanglement is this seems reasonable.

Entanglement is a coherence between multiple objects. When an external force changes one (or all) of the objects, the coherence is broken. You can get the objects to be coherent again, but you can't put the original coherence back.

This, of course, is beside the entire point that while assuming groups of neurons might be quantum entangled is at least somewhat reasonable; extrapolating ``local entanglement'' to mean ``existence of a sole'' is pretty ridiculous.

[Artaxerxes]

It's like a big puzzle framed by the outer pieces made by quantum physics and the holographic universe theory and the inner pieces made up of near death experiences, death bed visions, mystical and transcendental experiences, the work of some Mediums, religion, and some drug experiences like psyllocybin, mushrooms, LSD, etc.

When you step back and view the entire picture it paints a picture that there is a high degree of confidence that this life is not all there is.

Or like my momma used to say, "truth is stranger than fiction."

[Render]

The rest of your post is a bit of a red herring, isn't it? It doesn't relate to the content of the article at all.

How does it not?