Five Reasons You Won't Die

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#1
We've been taught we're just a collection of cells, and that we die when our bodies wear out. End of story. I've written textbooks showing how cells can be engineered into virtually all the tissues and organs of the human body. But a long list of scientific experiments suggests our belief in death is based on a false premise, that the world exists independent of us − the great observer.

Here are five reasons you won't die.

Reason One. You're not an object, you're a special being. According to biocentrism, nothing could exist without consciousness. Remember you can't see through the bone surrounding your brain. Space and time aren't objects, but rather the tools our mind uses to weave everything together.

"It will remain remarkable," said Eugene Wigner, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 "in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality."

Consider the uncertainty principle, one of the most famous and important aspects of quantum mechanics. Experiments confirm it's built into the fabric of reality, but it only makes sense from a biocentric perspective. If there's really a world out there with particles just bouncing around, then we should be able to measure all their properties. But we can't. Why should it matter to a particle what you decide to measure? Consider the double-slit experiment: if one "watches" a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle and creates solid-looking hits behind the individual slits on the final barrier that measures the impacts. Like a tiny bullet, it logically passes through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the trajectory of the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of waves that allow it pass through both holes at the same time. Why does our observation change what happens? Answer: Because reality is a process that requires our consciousness.

The two-slit experiment is an example of quantum effects, but experiments involving Buckyballs and KHCO3 crystals show that observer-dependent behavior extends into the world of ordinary human-scale objects. In fact, researchers recently showed (Nature 2009) that pairs of ions could be coaxed to entangle so their physical properties remained bound together even when separated by large distances, as if there was no space or time between them. Why? Because space and time aren't hard, cold objects. They're merely tools of our understanding.

Death doesn't exist in a timeless, spaceless world. After the death of his old friend, Albert Einstein said "Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us...know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." In truth, your mind transcends space and time.

Reason Two. Conservation of energy is a fundamental axiom of science. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can't be created or destroyed. It can only change forms. Although bodies self-destruct, the "me'' feeling is just a 20-watt cloud of energy in your head. But this energy doesn't go away at death. A few years ago scientists showed they could retroactively change something that happened in the past. Particles had to "decide" how to behave when they passed a fork in an apparatus. Later on, the experimenter could flip a switch. The results showed that what the observer decided at that point determined how the particle behaved at the fork in the past.

Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply powering a projector. Whether you flip a switch in an experiment on or off, it's still the same battery responsible for the projection. Like in the two-slit experiment, you collapse physical reality. At death, this energy doesn't just dissipate into the environment as the old mechanical worldview suggests. It has no reality independent of you. As Einstein's esteemed colleague John Wheeler stated "No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Each person creates their own sphere of reality - we carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which energy just dissipates.

Reason Three. Although we generally reject parallel universes as fiction, there's more than a morsel of scientific truth to this genre. A well-known aspect of quantum physics is that observations can't be predicted absolutely. Instead, there's a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation is the 'many-worlds' interpretation, which states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). There are an infinite number of universes (including our universe), which together comprise all of physical reality. Everything that can possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death doesn't exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Like flipping the switch in the experiment above, you're the agent who experiences them.

Reason Four. You will live on through your children, friends, and all who you touch during your life, not only as part of them, but through the histories you collapse with every action you take. "According to quantum physics," said theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, "the past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities." There's more uncertainty in bio-physical systems than anyone ever imagined. Reality isn't fully determined until we actually investigate (like in the Schrödinger's cat experiment). There are whole areas of history you determine during your life. When you interact with someone, you collapse more and more reality (that is, the spatio-temporal events that define your consciousness). When you're gone, your presence will continue like a ghost puppeteer in the universes of those you know.

Reason Five. It's not an accident that you happen to have the fortune of being alive now on the top of all infinity. Although it could be a one-in-a-jillion chance, perhaps it's not just dumb luck, but rather must be that way. While you'll eventually exit this reality, you, the observer, will forever continue to collapse more and more 'nows.' Your consciousness will always be in the present -- balanced between the infinite past and the indefinite future -- moving intermittently between realities along the edge of time, having new adventures and meeting new (and rejoining old) friends.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/5-reasons-you-wont-die_b_810936.html
 
Dec 3, 2009
2,421
48
0
44
#2
This is very true.... that is why the evil master of this earth..
the ones who wish a New World Order.
They want everyone to think a certain way...
because only if everyone manifests their world order can is surface.

They understand how the universe works and how it s just an illusion.
But the free thinkers also know this and as more people wake up.
They are able to forge a new destiny
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#3
In truth, your mind transcends space and time.

I think it would be better stated to say that our minds create space and time rather than transcend it - because I don't see how we could transcend something that we create and are bound by (unless we truly transcended and therefore could be without the filters of space & time)

Good article though although I would have like to have seen more reference to the theories of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics that the article was based off.
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#4
^ if you 'create' something then you are transcendent of it.
it means you could exist with or without creating it and are therefore 'outside' of the limitations that it implies.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#5
^ if you 'create' something then you are transcendent of it.
it means you could exist with or without creating it and are therefore 'outside' of the limitations that it implies.


Ok I see what you are saying. I was interpreting it in more of transcend beyond the limitations consciously, like see the past, present, and future as they are all happening right now, but I see what you mean too.
 
Sep 29, 2003
6,584
54
0
#6
Consider the double-slit experiment: if one "watches" a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle and creates solid-looking hits behind the individual slits on the final barrier that measures the impacts. Like a tiny bullet, it logically passes through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the trajectory of the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of waves that allow it pass through both holes at the same time. Why does our observation change what happens? Answer: Because reality is a process that requires our consciousness.

http://www.demonoid.me/files/download/2522388/007612053384/


You can view the experiment in this torrent. It is BBC Horizon's "What Is Reality"




SeriouslyThug said:
Reason Three. Although we generally reject parallel universes as fiction, there's more than a morsel of scientific truth to this genre. A well-known aspect of quantum physics is that observations can't be predicted absolutely. Instead, there's a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation is the 'many-worlds' interpretation, which states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). There are an infinite number of universes (including our universe), which together comprise all of physical reality. Everything that can possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death doesn't exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Like flipping the switch in the experiment above, you're the agent who experiences them.

the same BBC program also touches on this subject, and the Hologram Theory as well
 

R

Sicc OG
Dec 7, 2005
7,629
1,807
113
34
#7
so if my mind and consciousness can create all the universe then why can't i use it to create £1000000000000000000000000 in my bank account and 50 strippers in my bed
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#9
so if my mind and consciousness can create all the universe then why can't i use it to create £1000000000000000000000000 in my bank account and 50 strippers in my bed
maybe you are creating a bunch of contradictory things at once?

maybe you arent really the one who wants these things but this relative identity?

maybe you are creating the not having these things by constantly trying to "obtain" them, and by trying to gain something you are asserting that you dont have them?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#11
so if my mind and consciousness can create all the universe then why can't i use it to create £1000000000000000000000000 in my bank account and 50 strippers in my bed


It's not necessarily "creating" the universe in the way I think you are interpreting that.

Now it's certainly possible that everything we are experiencing is simply a product of our minds - and even so far as everything around us is a product of a brain that is floating somewhere in space and creating this universe (Bolztmann brain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain)

However, in the context of the article what they are saying is that the way we perceive the universe (such as the way we perceive time to passe from past - present - future), is simply a product of our brain. We cannot "control" what is going on, but the way we experience the universe and process the data as time, space, distance, movement, etc is a product of our brains.
 
Sep 29, 2003
6,584
54
0
#12
It's not necessarily "creating" the universe in the way I think you are interpreting that.

Now it's certainly possible that everything we are experiencing is simply a product of our minds - and even so far as everything around us is a product of a brain that is floating somewhere in space and creating this universe (Bolztmann brain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain)

However, in the context of the article what they are saying is that the way we perceive the universe (such as the way we perceive time to passe from past - present - future), is simply a product of our brain. We cannot "control" what is going on, but the way we experience the universe and process the data as time, space, distance, movement, etc is a product of our brains.

hah, I can't even fathom that my brain is in outer space and just creating an experience all around me. Everything I see is here; If I hold this cup of coffee, the mug is there, and when I drink, there is coffee in there because I can taste it, and digest it.

Sometimes I wonder if we we got here by some other humans who traveled here and dropped a bunch of us off. Sort of creating a new host planet, with a population and they are observing us from a distance.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#13
hah, I can't even fathom that my brain is in outer space and just creating an experience all around me. Everything I see is here; If I hold this cup of coffee, the mug is there, and when I drink, there is coffee in there because I can taste it, and digest it.

Sometimes I wonder if we we got here by some other humans who traveled here and dropped a bunch of us off. Sort of creating a new host planet, with a population and they are observing us from a distance.



This article is a little biased (IMO) but it is a good read nonetheless.

Big Brain Theory

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1
 

R

Sicc OG
Dec 7, 2005
7,629
1,807
113
34
#14
maybe you are creating a bunch of contradictory things at once?

maybe you arent really the one who wants these things but this relative identity?

maybe you are creating the not having these things by constantly trying to "obtain" them, and by trying to gain something you are asserting that you dont have them?
It's not necessarily "creating" the universe in the way I think you are interpreting that.

Now it's certainly possible that everything we are experiencing is simply a product of our minds - and even so far as everything around us is a product of a brain that is floating somewhere in space and creating this universe (Bolztmann brain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain)

However, in the context of the article what they are saying is that the way we perceive the universe (such as the way we perceive time to passe from past - present - future), is simply a product of our brain. We cannot "control" what is going on, but the way we experience the universe and process the data as time, space, distance, movement, etc is a product of our brains.
damn, i got served lol

that's the last time i try to be a smart ass in the GOM forum

this is a cool thread though i'm interested in this kinda stuff so if i read anything on the subject worth posting here i'll be sure to do it
 

0R0

Girbaud Shuttle Jeans
Dec 10, 2006
15,436
20,286
0
34
BasedWorld
#16
Ok I see what you are saying. I was interpreting it in more of transcend beyond the limitations consciously, like see the past, present, and future as they are all happening right now, but I see what you mean too.
Well I've heard of people dreaming of things before they happen and a lot of accounts of doing salvia and being transported to different places & times in their past. Not to mention astral projection. Depends how you look at it I guess.
 
May 20, 2004
602
34
0
www.rapbay.com
#18
It's not necessarily "creating" the universe in the way I think you are interpreting that.

Now it's certainly possible that everything we are experiencing is simply a product of our minds - and even so far as everything around us is a product of a brain that is floating somewhere in space and creating this universe (Bolztmann brain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain)

However, in the context of the article what they are saying is that the way we perceive the universe (such as the way we perceive time to passe from past - present - future), is simply a product of our brain. We cannot "control" what is going on, but the way we experience the universe and process the data as time, space, distance, movement, etc is a product of our brains.
Funny though, that we never perceive time to pass from past to present to future. Experience is only perceived in the immediate now and thought and memory are the only things that give the illusion of time passing. So the article is right, in that sense that time is a byproduct of "mind" or conceptual thought. But the thoughts that suggest the existence of time are arising in the immediacy of the moment as well. So no time is ever 'experienced' it only appears to be when coupled with these other aspects of experience(experience being the sum total of everything the 5 senses are manifesting right now plus thought and mental images). That is why einstein was saying that the appearance of these things is a persistent illusion.

Distance is likewise never "experienced", everywhere experience is perceived is immediate, and distance works off of the assumption that 'you' are a separate point that's 'here' in relation to a point thats 'there' but these are translations of thought as well, analogous and relative. If instead of identifying with the body-form that we are, you treat the body as merely a piece of the whole field of experience, it can be noticed that the body is an object in the sense field of 'seeing' just the same as the table or computer you're staring at. Only there because of the factor of being conscious in the first place, for none of these appear in deep sleep to use an example. So with shifting the point of view to identify with the whole field of seeing (instead of dividing the faculty of sight up into pieces mentally with labeling) and making the body a subject and everything else objects, then everything is at zero distance from seeing or consciousness.

From there, then taking power away from thought... with seeing thought as just thought-as-suchness it removes quite a bit of translation as well. Instead of me-seeing-something there is merely seeing. You can play with all of this and have crazy shifts in perception... stare at anything in your immediate area... that 'thing' IS seeing... you could say it's made of seeing but that still gives power to the notion that it's a separate 'thing' from the act of sight. There is no seeing without these 'things' that appear to be seen. The act of seeing is comprised of the appearances, color etc.. sight consists of. If perceived correctly it removes the seeming appearance of distance. For everything is right here in the sense that everything is seeing and because of seeing experience IS. Is there a computer screen separate from seeing? And is seeing happening separately from your space of awareness? They're all one thing.

And this goes for every other sense faculty, take sound for example, listen to a sound or sounds happening where you are right now... the sound isn't separate from the hearing of the sound. The sound and hearing are one thing. The sound is hearing and hearing is creating present experience. Experience is that sound happening. There is no you-hearing-sound... all of experience when perceived directly without translation, all contracts into one appearance or 'happening'. This isn't something like subjective idealism either.. because subjective idealism still works on the premise that there's a subject like the mind that all this is happening inside. Ideas of inside/outside here/there etc.. need to be abandoned temporarily (or altogether) to apperceive what i'm saying. The notions of subject and object need to be let go. Ideas like the belief that we are in the body.. but is the body, being in seeing, in you? It's more like you try to look at the whole of experience as purely pattern without and substantiality underneath. Like a process or formation that's constantly changing and shifting like waves. Our shitpile of fixed conceptual thoughts and conditioning just have to be openly looked at in a different way.. letting go of fixed notions of perception that we believe to have absolute inherent existence. So understanding that sensations are processes in the nervous system, but more directly, are the process of consciousness... of consciousness happening or "being".. existing or however you wanna say it.... and those processes are what we are. The self as what-we-take-ourselves-to-be is the process of sensation, and there isn't a sensor behind the sensation. When we have a sensation, we don't have it, we are it.

Very abstract to contemplate, borderline mental gymnastics albeit, but it helps because you can apply it to the direct experience that you're having at all times. But i guess the point is, that the enquiry addresses a very fundamental part of 'us' and makes you question... Are YOU experiencing? Or is there simply a process of experience occurring, impersonal in nature and just consisting of all these aspects.. as the sum total of all of them?

If it can be either way depending on the shift of perception then is it one way? Or the other? Or both? Or neither?

Shit gets wild.