Monday, May 6, 2024
Latest:

Similar Posts

41 thoughts on “Does Quantum Physics Prove Consciousness Moves To Another Universe When You Die | Article Review”

  1. Idk, I mean if conscious moves to another plane of existence then we're all screwed, I don't want to be a helpless toddler with a drunk father again😂

  5. yes it does its called quantum immortality, how i know, i died in march 2018 or maybe october im not totally sure because my memory got fuzzy at that point it may only have been a past memory from an october event, its came through like a near death experience meaning the first stage of death is hearing people notice your dead through telepathy, you actually hear them find you , you become a ghost in 5d, an alternate universe where unity consciousness exist, you`ll notice the angels around you and then connect with them , they call themselves aliens because they are from alcyone in the pleiades

  7. NDEs or DEs are happening . What people experience scientists call NDE. When apple falls on the ground you call it gravity, no body can deny it. believe it or not consciousness is not a production of the brain. otherwise NDEs would never take place

  9. you must be hurt if you believe a course is necessary. Look at heaviside and many others who never had a formal education yet contributed much more than half the PhD physicists. the ideology which you have is disgusting and not good man..

  13. "But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics."

    I love how laypeople think that scientist can just "pick up" a completely different branch of science like they are picking up a new hobby. They don't realize that scientists have to go through 9 years of specialized training just to be able to do research in a very narrow subfield of a field of their own branch.

  14. Because Quantum Physics introduces chance and probability in our previously deterministic universe we have the following case:
    Conciousness doesn't move to a different unierse when we die (1)
    Conciousness does move to a different unierse when we die (2)

    As you can clearly see, there are 2 options, so thats a 50% chance of any one of those being true.
    Hence Quantum Physics proves there's a 50% chance of statement (2) being true

    Easy maths, didn't even need to take Heisenbergology classes lol

  17. Ok I dont know how this works in the US but I have 6 semesters of quantum chemistry during my chemistry degree, and everything is derived rigorously, we simply focus more on specific applications
    This of course has absolutely nothing to do with quantum gravity and what they're doing is bullshit obviously

  18. I would love if you could go into the physics aspects of Penrose's and Hameroff's proposal. Their views are rather controversial from a philosophy of mind or neuroscience point of view (but as far as I'm aware, they have not been refuted). Perhaps their 2011 paper Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory would be a good starting point? Anyway, love your videos (and please do more hard physics videos).

  25. This stuff is pretty far beyond my understanding of physics also. But, Penrose was on Joe Rogan talking about what this article says he was talking about.

    That being said, in the interview with Rogan, Penrose admits that it’s mostly speculation. But, apparently he did get the idea from that anesthesiologist, and it boils down to microtubules having some effect on consciousness.

    Does this mean this article is legitimate? Of course not. This article seems to pile on a lot of metaphysical woo to Penrose’s actual research.

  26. Filed under Betteridge's law of headlines. It's like "has science proved that drowning is actually good for kittens?' – if it's a question-headline, then the answer is almost always NO. 🙂

  27. This is actually a very interesting topic. I would have enjoyed it more if you had presented the differing opinions and possibly your own and then utilized the online resources to back the opposing points of view. Maybe even provide an informal poll on which side your audience, friends and fellow students believe.

  28. I listened to a lecture Penrose gave on Orch-OR at the Consciousness/Cognition conference early this year. Penrose is brilliant, but his theories are unorthodox even for students of the subject. AFAIK his theory is supposed to explain how quantum interactions “choose” what vacuum to interact in, and so in some way is supposed to patch up relativity and qm to some extent (I am not a physicist, this is my impression).

    Going further, he seems to believe the brain uses microtubules (the finest structure in the brain, and possibly only one capable of such things) taps into these “choices”. So consciousness is not the result of the brain’s functions but instead taps into quantum interactions.

    I think at this point the theory has been mostly disproven, but it satisfies Penrose’s non-materialist worldview.

  32. I completely get what you're saying, I'm also a very sceptical person. We definitely need communicators in the scientific community writing scientific articles, it got harder to follow as ypu went on (sigh)

    But I do think the different branches of science are collaborating increasingly, as we try to explain all realms of nature with the same laws, so I wasn't surprised to see a medical doctor getting into quantum. However, I can agree that preaching a theory in a field you don't have a degree is not the best decision.

    On the other hand I would totally be that guy who literally has a hand in every science (probably not gonna be a theorist outside of my field though)

  35. Was at a seminar recently titled "Quantum Information and Quantum Cognition". Nothing about the researcher's work implied that there was anything to be said about consciousness, apart from exhibiting it. I have yet to come across a concise definition for consciousness, and it's unlikely that QM will have anything definitive to say any time soon, likely because of the difficulties in Quantum Information and processing that researchers continue to confront. Nonetheless, it may be an interesting idea to entertain. I think this is the paper that researcher has published, you may find it interesting, check it ou if you like. Cheers. Arxiv: 1711.04801

  37. I was arguing with some guy on the math subreddit because he said something along the lines of, "quantum mechanics is subjective". I was like no dude, maybe he thinks that the various interpretations of QM are subjective or whatever. But the actual underlying structure of QM, which is rooted in the rigorous mathematics of state vectors, observables, and Hilbert spaces, is not at all subjective.

    There's also this weirdness, new age feeling thing, that non-physics people view on quantum mechanics that is more akin mysticism than anything you learn about in a real course in quantum in college. And this is probably due to simply because people want to seek deeper truths about the world, but without doing any math.

  38. Can something outside our universe even considered real? Like, that's the point of "universe", right?
    These questions keep me awake at night…

    Because they are on Sixty Symbols
    (but seriously though)

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com