The Truth About Death ; It doesn’t exist

[Aletheia]

I am not familiar with the author, but I do believe that conscious energy c evolved around the time of the Big Bang and that we “live” many lives not necessarily just as humans on earth. I think “souls” traveled the cosmos but were very limited on experiencing the cosmos fully as our consciousness could only observe. That ancient lineages of hominins were our early attempts for this planet. I believe that human ideas of gods, death, afterlife are all part of mechanisms in our conscious energy to fully experience and learn during a current existence as well as prevent us from total insanity.

Enjoy your beliefs!

Out of interest, do you have any testable predictions based upon them?

[Aletheia]

https://ens-paris-saclay.fr/lecole/orga ... ncois-roch

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment
by VINCENT JACQUES, E WU, FRÉDÉRIC GROSSHANS, FRANÇOIS TREUSSART, PHILIPPE GRANGIER, ALAIN ASPECT, AND JEAN-FRANÇOIS ROCH
16 Feb 2007
Vol 315, Issue 5814
pp. 966-968
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136303
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1136303

Certainly an impressive achievement in experimental physics, but it doesn't mean what you think it means BobCobbMagob.

[Aletheia]

The idea is stupid and shows a piss poor understanding of scientific principles. If one wants to believe that consciousness is eternal then fine, whatever, but don't try to use a poor understanding of scientific principles to push it. I'm not mad I saw the post. I do find issue with you trying to pass it off as "News" when it's just an Advertisement

Lol yes… I’m sure your higher levels of understanding the nature of science and consciousness far outweighs the scientists that were published in Science magazine

If you read Roch's paper carefully, you may notice that it doesn't in any way endorse the theories about the nature of consciousness referred to in the science fiction story.

Non-physicists reading about QM interpretations involving observers collapsing states need to be aware that this is a minefield where they should treat carefully.

[Quorra2.0]

I do remember that movie vaguely. I think Benico del Toro was in it as well. I do believe you’re correct that it is a reference to the weight lost at death as the soul leaves the body. I had forgotten about that movie until you mentioned it, lol.

Remember the movie with Sean Penn called 21 grams? It referred to the wright one loses immediately upon dying. I think it implied the weight of the soul or energy lost ...

I remember a really bad movie back in the 70s called Beyond and Back. One scene showed a guy taking a picture of the soul leaving the body. It went on to say that a soul has weight and some other stuff I can not remember.

An interesting thing us if the energy that leaves the bidy carries consciousness or whether we come from nothing and return to nothing conscious wise. John Danaher and I think Sam Harris call these the first and second deaths.

There was an episode of “Evil” in which there was an experiment in which they were trying to determine the weight of the soul or something like that. I was working on a project so only half paying attention, lol.

[Deleted User 1990]

https://ens-paris-saclay.fr/lecole/orga ... ncois-roch

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment
by VINCENT JACQUES, E WU, FRÉDÉRIC GROSSHANS, FRANÇOIS TREUSSART, PHILIPPE GRANGIER, ALAIN ASPECT, AND JEAN-FRANÇOIS ROCH
16 Feb 2007
Vol 315, Issue 5814
pp. 966-968
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136303
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1136303

Certainly an impressive achievement in experimental physics, but it doesn't mean what you think it means BobCobbMagob.

Oh save it… all I posted was the text and said it’s interesting. I’m just not in the mood today…

[Aletheia]

https://ens-paris-saclay.fr/lecole/orga ... ncois-roch

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment
by VINCENT JACQUES, E WU, FRÉDÉRIC GROSSHANS, FRANÇOIS TREUSSART, PHILIPPE GRANGIER, ALAIN ASPECT, AND JEAN-FRANÇOIS ROCH
16 Feb 2007
Vol 315, Issue 5814
pp. 966-968
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136303
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1136303

Certainly an impressive achievement in experimental physics, but it doesn't mean what you think it means BobCobbMagob.

Oh save it… all I posted was the text and said it’s interesting. I’m just not in the mood today…

You did a bit more than just post it. You also attacked Baconqueen13's scientific knowledge.

One of the nice things about science is that one never has to resort to "I'm more qualified than you are, so you'll just have to trust my word". Someone making an incorrect claim may not understand the rebuttal, but the person rebutting the claim can always point them towards the resources they'd need to read in order to understand it, and which they've got equal access to if they're willing to put the time into understanding them.

I've spent a fair amount of time providing proper reliable references that back up what Baconqueen said. It is now over to you, either to graciously admit you were wrong (which, fair enough, that happens to all of us from time to time) or point out something specific that you disagree with in the original academic papers or that you think has not been properly addressed.

I'm willing to go into as much detail as you are willing to spend time reading.

[Deleted User 1990]

Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment
by VINCENT JACQUES, E WU, FRÉDÉRIC GROSSHANS, FRANÇOIS TREUSSART, PHILIPPE GRANGIER, ALAIN ASPECT, AND JEAN-FRANÇOIS ROCH
16 Feb 2007
Vol 315, Issue 5814
pp. 966-968
DOI: 10.1126/science.1136303
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1136303

Certainly an impressive achievement in experimental physics, but it doesn't mean what you think it means BobCobbMagob.

Oh save it… all I posted was the text and said it’s interesting. I’m just not in the mood today…

You did a bit more than just post it. You also attacked Baconqueen13's scientific knowledge.

One of the nice things about science is that one never has to resort to "I'm more qualified than you are, so you'll just have to trust my word". Someone making an incorrect claim may not understand the rebuttal, but the person rebutting the claim can always point them towards the resources they'd need to read in order to understand it, and which they've got equal access to if they're willing to put the time into understanding them.

I've spent a fair amount of time providing proper reliable references that back up what Baconqueen said. It is now over to you, either to graciously admit you were wrong (which, fair enough, that happens to all of us from time to time) or point out something specific that you disagree with in the original academic papers or that you think has not been properly addressed.

I'm willing to go into as much detail as you are willing to spend time reading.

Wrong about what? I told her to be willing to have a conversation about new ideas that might turn out to be more philosophical…when she argued with the intelligence behind it I told her great… go tell someone else…




You can go ahead and talk about anything you would like, just as everyone else besides bacon did…