Sunday, November 23, 2014   |   5,256 users online
Contact us    |    Advertise    |   Help   RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon
    Home  ·  News  ·  Forum  ·  Stories  ·  Image Gallery  ·  Columns  ·  Encyclopedia  ·  Videos  ·  Chat
Find: in

Does biocentrism prove there is an afterlife?


Posted on Monday, 18 November, 2013 | Comment icon 151 comments


Could biocentrism be the key to understanding the nature of reality ? Image Credit: CC BY-SA 3.0 erpete/deviantART

Professor Robert Lanza believes the answer to life after death lies in the science of quantum physics.

Understanding what happens to us after we die is something mankind has been struggling with since the dawn of time. Despite all our advances in science, we have yet to find an answer to what is undoubtedly one of life's greatest mysteries.

But what if death itself is nothing more than a figment of our imaginations ? This is the idea being put forward by Professor Robert Lanza who subscribes to the concept of biocentrism, the idea that the universe itself only exists because of our conscious awareness of it. Instead of the universe creating life, life creates the universe.

With this theory in mind, death is a concept that, in Prof Lanza's own words "cannot exist in any real sense." Even space and time are simply regarded as "tools of the mind".

Prof Lanza believes that the key to understanding life, death and the universe is to question the preconceived notions of reality, time and consciousness and to see the world from an entirely new perspective.

   
Source: Independent | Comments (151)

Tags: Quantum Physics, Life After Death, Biocentrism


 
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #142 Posted by sepulchrave on 1 December, 2013, 8:38
The Schwarzschild radius is only a meaningful length scale if the entire mass of the object is contained within that radius. Since the article I mentioned above reports molecular diffraction, even though the de Broglie wavelength was many orders of magnitude smaller than the spatial extent of the object, I am not sure the argument that is mentioned in the Wiki that you linked to applies here. The molecule was 6000 pm (not 600 000 pm, like I erroneously mentioned the first time) long, the de Broglie wavelength only about 1 pm, and (if my calculations are correct this time) the Compton wavel... [More]
Comment icon #143 Posted by Almagest on 1 December, 2013, 9:48
Here's a good rule of thumb; Every time you see or hear someone who isn't a physicist use the word quantum you can safely assume that they don't know what they're talking about.
Comment icon #144 Posted by SilentHunter on 1 December, 2013, 16:42
No, because I know for a fact what you wrote was wrong lmao. The Planck Mass is not 21 micrograms (0.021g) its at the scale of nanograms (0.0000000043kg). Whats funny is the Wiki you linked us too actually tells you that too. The Planck Mass is not the limit for quantum behaviour in objects its the limit at which they can guarentee quantum behaviour is occuring (assuming no measurements with a specialist particle detector). You can get objects large enough to be seen with the eye behaving quantum mechanically (trillions of trillions of trillions of atoms). An example is one of the super co... [More]
Comment icon #145 Posted by sepulchrave on 2 December, 2013, 12:56
I gotta side with DieChecker here, the wiki in question mentions the ``reduced Planck mass'' of 4.3 x 10[sup]-9[/sup] kg, which is still on the order of micrograms. A nanogram would be ~10[sup]-12[/sup] kg. No it isn't. No you can't. A superconductor is not a macroscopic quantum object, and the quantum coherence certainly doesn't extend to trillions and trillions and trillions of atoms. Superconducting coherence lengths are only on the order of tens (or sometimes hundreds) of nanometers, and decrease with increasing critical temperature (see and , for example); ... [More]
Comment icon #146 Posted by Frank Merton on 2 December, 2013, 12:58
I know what you are getting at, but it is not hard for a non-physicist to understand what something being quantized means. The population of a given city is quantized into individual residents.
Comment icon #147 Posted by DieChecker on 2 December, 2013, 21:01
No. The Wiki site agreed with me on the size of the Planck Mass. Or, maybe you can quote the part I got wrong? No. My point does not care what size the object is. I was clear several times that the state of the object is not in arguement. I was pointing out that larger then the Planck Mass science (According to the Wiki article) is going to have a hard time PROVING it, Observing the state of the object. So even if the Moon went into a state like was posted earlier, humans would have no way to observe if it was in such a state, given our current technology. That was my only actual point. ... [More]
Comment icon #148 Posted by jsowersby on 3 February, 2014, 2:26
Sounds like Quantum Physics is catching up to what the Taoist and Buddhist sages have known for thousands of years. The world is only a reflection of us. We are one and the same with everything else in the universe. An ice cube is never really separate from the ocean, we only perceive it as such with our limited senses.
Comment icon #149 Posted by danielost on 11 February, 2014, 22:45
Dreams!!!!
Comment icon #150 Posted by danielost on 11 February, 2014, 22:49
Some believe everything living or not has a soul.
Comment icon #151 Posted by lorelle17 on 12 February, 2014, 4:15
Conscious dies with the body.. subconscious is forever


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Stories & Experiences
Hotel hauntings
10-22-2014 | Sierra Vista, Arizona
 
A conflict of interest
10-22-2014 | South Jersey, United States
 
My experience
10-7-2014 | United States
 
Spirit sighting
10-7-2014 | UK
 
My strange house
9-30-2014 | London, England
 
Winged beings
9-30-2014 | Wharton, IL USA
 
Demon possession in Thailand
9-30-2014 | Korat Thailand
 

         More stories | Send us your story
 
Top   |  Home   |   Forum   |   News   |   Image Gallery   |  Columns   |   Encyclopedia   |   Videos   |   Polls
UM-X 10.6 Unexplained-Mysteries.com © 2001-2014
Privacy Policy and Disclaimer   |   Cookies   |   Advertise   |   Contact   |   Help/FAQ