Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Is there an afterlife? The science of biocentrism can prove there is, claims Professor Robert Lanza


It’s a question pondered by philosophers, scientists and the devout since the dawn of time: is there an afterlife?

While the religious would argue that life on earth is a mere warm up for an eternity spent in heaven or hell, and many scientists would dismiss the concept for lack of proof � one expert claims he has definitive evidence to confirm once and for all that there is indeed life after death.

The answer, Professor Robert Lanza says, lies in quantum physics � specifically the theory of biocentrism. The scientist, from Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, says the evidence lies in the idea that the concept of death is a mere figment of our consciousness.

Professor Lanza says biocentrism explains that the universe only exists because of an individual’s consciousness of it � essentially life and biology are central to reality, which in turn creates the universe; the universe itself does not create life. The same applies to the concepts of space and time, which Professor Lanza describes as “simply tools of the mind�.

In a message posted on the scientist’s website, he explains that with this theory in mind, the concept of death as we know it is “cannot exist in any real sense� as there are no true boundaries by which to define it. Essentially, the idea of dying is something we have long been taught to accept, but in reality it just exists in our minds.

Professor Lanza says biocentrism is similar to the idea of parallel universes - a concept hypothesised by theoretical physicists. In much the same way as everything that could possibly happen is speculated to be occurring all at once across multiple universes, he says that once we begin to question our preconceived concepts of time and consciousness, the alternatives are huge and could alter the way we think about the world in a way not seen since the 15th century’s “flat earth� debate.

He goes on to use the so-called double-slit experiment as proof that the behaviour of a particle can be altered by a person’s perception of it. In the experiment, when scientists watch a particle pass through a multi-holed barrier, the particle acts like a bullet travelling through a single slit. When the article is not watched, however, the particle moves through the holes like a wave.

Scientists argue that the double-slit experiment proves that particles can act as two separate entities at the same time, challenging long-established ideas of time and perception.

Although the idea is rather complicated, Professor Lanza says it can be explained far more simply using colours. Essentially, the sky may be perceived as blue, but if the cells in our brain were changed to make the sky look green, was the sky every truly blue or was that just our perception?

In terms of how this affects life after death, Professor Lanza explains that, when we die, our life becomes a “perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse�. He added: “Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix.�



Professor Lanza's theory is explained in full in his book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe



And his follow-up book Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death

Krishna wrote: "Well ancient cultures have also said about afterlife. Is it the indication that ancient civilizations were much more advanced than we believe?"

Quite possibly, yes.

Thank you so much for that post James. I believe totally in what Professor Lanza implies. I am not so educated and know nothing much about science but absolutely believe in my instincts and what he appears to say here is what I believe. Moreover, I have always felt that science would progress once it stopped believing in it's own infallibility and opened it's mind in a new direction.

Laureen wrote: "Thank you so much for that post James. I believe totally in what Professor Lanza implies. I am not so educated and know nothing much about science but absolutely believe in my instincts and what h..."

No worries, Laureen.
There are some thinkers who have always predicted science and religion would eventually say the same thing...According to this theory both would have to evolve - religion would need to go beyond saying there is only one version of God (their God) and science would have to advance further where it can prove the existence of some kind of universal energy that permeates everything...A God molecule or something.
But maybe it was just a misunderstanding all along and the two were never mutually exclusive.

At these points I guess religion would be more aptly called spirituality and science would possibly be called something like spirit science.
I dunno, just thinking aloud really!

What about before life? I mean, where was this thing called life before emerging as a human? We know that once life never existed on earth, or on other planets around us, so it came from outside earth.

The physical body returns to a lifeless physical matter, so whatever made this matter as alive, has gone somewhere else.
Where has it gone? We don't see it anywhere in physicality, which says it is a force but its not made of physicality.

The few known attributes of life would be:
1. That it is reproducible only by life.
2. It takes two to tango - a positive and negative force combine to produce life.
3. It has a limited life span.
4. Its emerging and leaving is not in our control.
5. We know nothing of its pre-life and after-life positions.
6. Most of all, we do not know the purpose of life.

In other words, we do not know what we are, why we are here, where we come from, where we go - or even if there is another place to go to.

It is a most treacherous condition. But I suspect a certain enzyme stops us from panicking, as we would if told tomorrow we will lose our car. I do not see this as a dna attribute that has accumulated genes of knowledge through time. I see speech as not from evolution but as pre-programmed into life - because older life forms have not acquired speech. Nor do we teach a child speech - we just click and it comes on.

Krishna wrote: "Well ancient cultures have also said about afterlife. Is it the indication that ancient civilizations were much more advanced than we believe?"

I see the eastern philosophy as superior to the ancient Egyptians. The book of the dead is hopelessly focused on the physical body becoming alive again, with assets like slaves and food accompanying them when they awake again.

Joseph wrote: "What about before life? ..."

I think under these Quantum Physics theories "life before life" would exist just as much as "life after death".
Likewise with the Big Bang issues.
Once you start opening up to space and time being illusory, then everything becomes a lot different I think.

Everything hinges on one factor.

Finite or infinite universe. I believe that one should always state their preamble at the beginning which universe they are referring to. Such a provision is correctly observed in Genesis - it begins with its preamble the universe is absolutely finite and it never existed before. In such a scenario, where and how do you consider life emanates from - its a scientific question more so than a theological one?

Try it.

Joseph wrote: "Such a provision is correctly observed in Genesis - it begins with its preamble the universe is absolutely finite and it never existed before. In such a scenario, where and how do you consider life emanates from - its a scientific question more so than a theological one?
..."

Hey Joseph,
Ah, here we are back at the old Genesis stumbling block again... I'm starting to feel like I'm a cast member in Groundhog Day :)

Given that you've previously stated Genesis is factual and without error, I can see exactly where you're coming from and get your perspective. You have total faith in that book. For you that book is a factual/historical/scientific document and you interpret it to mean there's a finite universe.

But as with all ancient scriptures, others in your same faith interpret Genesis differently and believe it to mean infinite life - they don't take "in the beginning" literally as you have. And still others (outside of your faith/religion) think the entire book is a fairy tale. And others have never read Genesis nor ever will and approach things from other avenues.

So it's really tricky to bring any religious book into any debate, I think.
And remember not everyone has the same faith that you do - not everyone practices Judaism (or Christianity) - so it's impossible to debate on that level in my opinion...

I mean, if we were really going to bring in the books of Judaism and Christianity into such debates, then why not the holy books of Islam as well?
I've heard similar theories being espoused by Muslim scholars about how their holy books are factual and tell us how the universe was created.

But can you see how for non-Muslim members of this group it may be hard to relate to those theories?

Hope I'm not offending, but just think there has to be a more universal and non-theological way to discuss things. Otherwise it gets a bit too niche and exclusive, know what I mean?

James Morcan wrote: "Hey Joseph,
Ah, here we are back at the old Genesis stumbling block again... I'm starting to feel like I'm a cast member in Groundhog Day :)
..."

Ha, ha!
You ain't the only one feeling like they are in Groundhog Day here!!!
Everytime I check in on this group there seems to be a new Genesis infinite vs finite universe post...I mean, dayum give it a rest already, Joe Boy.

I don't get why some people fail to understand that their faith or interpretation of religious texts is simply a personal thing...Doesn't mean everyone will relate the same way.

Krishna wrote: "But James, if there is any scientific fact written in Genesis, then we must consider it. The content matters, not the religion or source.
."

Totally agree Krishna, but also think sometimes the line between fact and faith is a slim one or at least an ambiguous one. What is one person's fact is another person's interpretation.

Anyway, getting back on topic, is Professor Robert Lanza convincing you on his theories of an afterlife?
I thought you said previously you're an atheist?

One thing I find interesting is Lanza is basically saying with his biocentrism theory that there is no death because there is no time...So there can be no beginning and no end...Pretty deep!

Unless I'm misunderstanding his theory?
Maybe I need to read more than just a quick article on it.

James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Such a provision is correctly observed in Genesis - it begins with its preamble the universe is absolutely finite and it never existed before. In such a scenario, where and how do yo..."

Aha! Ground Hog Day... "I told you. I wake up every day, right here, right in Punxsutawney and it's always February 2nd..."

So is every post just going to go for the Genesis interpretation of infinite vs. finite universe eventually? Heh heh. I understand that we all have different worldviews, interpretations, and opinions, and that can be tricky and lead to quarrels but I personally do think that Genesis is a factual book and should be taken literally. Also believing along with that that the universe is finite, but God is infinite.

And as for the actual topic of this discussion...
It's a rather interesting theory. Kind of being that our perception can be a bit mangled. Interesting, yet confusing for me. I do think that there is an afterlife, and when you do die you either can spend eternity in Hell or Heaven, your choice. No, I can't physically prove that there is a Heaven or a Hell because neither are earthly provable for they are only spent in after death. My only proof is the Bible, and it's truths, the rest is faith in God.

Argon wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Hey Joseph,
Ah, here we are back at the old Genesis stumbling block again... I'm starting to feel like I'm a cast member in Groundhog Day :)
..."

Ha, ha!
You ain't the only on..."

Well said! I can't improve on that. So...let's hope the message sinks in...

Krishna wrote: "Fay, for staying in heaven or hell also life is required. That is ultimately afterlife only."

Yes Krishna, life is also required to determine your afterlife destination. Did I imply something that I didn't mean to in #15?

James No.5. I am definitely with "some thinkers". Well said.
On the Heaven and Hell issue, that is the part of traditional religion I most disagree with. Joseph says we don't know the purpose of life on earth. Well, it is my instinctual personal belief that there is no Hell as in burning forever - Hell is what we create ourselves on Earth. Heaven is some idyllic vision we strive towards in becoming the best that we can be.

Our essence keeps returning to Earth until it becomes "perfect" and can join permanently with the esoteric energy that is "God" for want of a better name.
Maybe that is why the Universe is expanding? More people are perfecting themselves? I know, probably silly. But just getting one term on Earth and going to a Heaven or a Hell makes absolutely no sense to me. I think life as we know it, is all about learning. That's the purpose of life.

Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are discussing - while also wanting an empirical debate? There's only 2 kinds, and apples & oranges apply:

1. The universe I exist in is absolutely finite.
Or
2. The universe I exist in is absolutely infinite.

Also, sailor beware: absolutely finite = absolutely finite. Go!

Laureen wrote: "James No.5. I am definitely with "some thinkers". Well said.
On the Heaven and Hell issue, that is the part of traditional religion I most disagree with. Joseph says we don't know the purpose of life on earth...."

I totally agree with Joseph's statement in that we just do not know the purpose of life on Earth and that's basically the "human condition".

And Laureen that's a deep post of yours that I sense has a lot of wisdom in it.
And yeah, burning for eternity in Hell and bliss in Heaven seems like a misunderstanding also.

Lastly, one of the group's members (Wesley) posted this beautiful pic in the photo section and I resonate with this message about heaven basically being a state of mind rather than a place: /photo/group...

Joseph wrote: "Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are discussing - while also wanting an empirical debate? There's only 2 kinds, and apples & oranges apply:

1. The universe I exist in is absolutely finite...."

If they ever produce Groundhog Day 2, Joseph, you've gotta be the screenwriter! :)

But damn, you've worn me down so I'm gonna play your game: I believe in an infinite universe. Or else I believe in finite and infinite one at the same time (a grand paradox).

So if we cannot get a consensus on whether it's finite or infinite, then how do we move forward in your game of GGG (aka Genesis meets Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ meets GroundhogDay)??

James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are discussing - while also wanting an empirical debate? There's only 2 kinds, and apples & oranges apply:

1. Th..."

Cool. Now everything you say must align with that. Also, we cannot discuss any document that holds an opposite view with the same factors applying.

Here, since there are only two possibilities, each should be discussed 'separately' with a different preamble and see what happens. My position is thus:

1. There are no scientific alternatives to a universe maker based on an absolutely finite universe. Proposing worm, MV, etc gets a gong here.

And

2. There is no requirement of science in an infinite universe - the foundation of ultimate random for a complexity thereafter, says so.

That's how the groundhog metaphor is omitted.

Joseph wrote: "Cool. Now everything you say must align with that. Also, we cannot discuss any document that holds an opposite view with the same factors applying.

Here, since there are only two possibilities, each should be discussed 'separately' with a different preamble and see what happens. ..."

Let's see what others think in this game of Genesis meets Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ meets GroundhogDay :)
For now, I still cannot see any relevance to the game to be honest...I don't think us speculating whether the universe is finite or infinite really matters either way, especially as it cannot be proven anymore than the Big Bang can...But maybe others will disagree and the game of GGG will take off.

James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are discussing - while also wanting an empirical debate? There's only 2 kinds..."

It becomes vital precisely because we cannot positively determine this issue. If we knew, there would be no need to raise this issue.

Of course there is an impacting effect here, more so than any other factor. Its like saying there's an elephant in one's bedroom and we do not have to figure out how it got there, only that it is there.

Consider why most scientists disdain this issue and why they are cherry picking where science begins!

Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are discussing - while also wanting an empirical debate?..."

Joseph - Congrats. I was ready to slit my wrists if you'd mentioned the words "finite" or "infinite" again. Thank you for saving me going to that trouble...

Lance Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are discussing - while also wanting an em..."

They all say that; it shuts the door without satisfaction. But in reality it is an anti-scientific premise and not a choice factor. If you closely examine the reasoning of an infinite universe, many holes will be seen.


However, I accept the requirement for bypassing this issue, but only as an evaluation of how the universe progresses aside from how it emerged. This includes the rejection of pre and parallel universes, or that the BBT can be vested in a singular entity expanding. Hope that is a sort of acceptable avoiding of the ground hog day.

Joseph wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are discussing - whi..."

Mmmmaybe Joseph. I shall allow minds greater than mine to comment on that...

Lance Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Lance Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Joseph wrote: "Why do we have an issue of nominating a preamble which universe were are d..."

Lance. Greater minds cannot tell us. That is why it is a scientifically incumbent factor of debate.

Professor Joseph Silk.
Head of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, UNIVERSITY of Oxford, United Kingdom.
Interview 2 May 2001
This interview was conducted in 2001 at ESA's European Space Technology Centre (ESTEC) in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, during an international workshop to discuss the scientific programme of the Planck satellite. Here he clarifies the concept of 'flatness', and explains why we may never get to know whether the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite.

Yeah, it's good that this discussion has evolved into such a free-for-all. I am still in awe of James' post with an example of Prof. Lanza's thoughts. My message No. 19 on the purpose of life, was done a little "tongue in cheek". But none of the comments here are proof of anything. That is the challenge for the future and if science & religion could get together on this as yet unproven commentary on life, death, the Universe and the purpose of life, we might just get a better insight. However, science & religion experts are so sure of their opposing argument, I don't hold much hope. In the mean-time, this discussion is getting a little repetitive.

Krishna wrote: "I really cannot understand how our consciousness can create universe? So what about big bang?
But I believe in afterlife. But probability can never be 1 and so it may not be true also. Confused!"

Confused also!

Laureen wrote: "Yeah, it's good that this discussion has evolved into such a free-for-all. I am still in awe of James' post with an example of Prof. Lanza's thoughts. My message No. 19 on the purpose of life, wa..."

When do you think science [or laws] emerged and how? NS is a law. The earth was void in the beginning - no components existed.

When do you think the first Zebra emerged - regardless if it branched out from other life forms, there has to be a first of its kind?

When did life emerge - did it appear in one place and branch out or did it appear all over the planet simultaneously, then branch out with the lands separating?

I know we don't know, but one can chose a preference to align with the accepted status quo. These impact many paradigms held.

Sorry Joseph. I find some of your posts hard to understand what you are trying to say. Is this an argument for creationism? I don't think we know enough about anything to have hard and fast beliefs but you are entitled to yours.

I wanna add 2 quotes into the mix here...

The first of which is my own personal Groundhog Day (almost equal to Joseph's Genesis finite Universe theory!) as I keep repeating it but I think it's relevant:

1: "Scientific fact (until next revision)"

2: "Science and religion are not at odds. Science is just too young to understand."

I also think what Laureen said in another thread about science sometimes being illogical actually is true (sometimes). For example, according to the questions I've asked scientists (including an astrophysicist) about the widely accepted Big Bang Theory, it appears there is a massive gap between the theory and proof. Currently there's a little bit of evidence but a lot of theory on the Big Bang.
At the end of the day, it strikes me there is just as much faith and trust in science as there is in religion...In fact, science becomes like a religion to many - at which point it becomes illogical...

Coming back to the topic of this thread: The science of biocentrism can prove there is an Afterlife, claims Professor Robert Lanza

What does everyone think of Lanza' theory?

Krishna wrote: "I really cannot understand how our consciousness can create universe? So what about big bang?
But I believe in afterlife. But probability can never be 1 and so it may not be true also. Confused!"

Yeah, I'm very confused!

James,

Well, I don't know what this professor has been smoking, but I'd like some! The great advantage of being an academic is that no matter how incompetent you are, you can't be fired. He seems to have completely misunderstood the Young's double slit experiment and quantum mechanics in general.

Krishna is a 16 year old science student at a university in India, John.
So why don't you have a scientific debate with her about the validity of this professor's theories?
I'm obviously the wrong person to pitch your own theories to given I've never studied science academically and simply have a layman's fascination with science...

Krishna,

"Points of view" have no real place in science. Conclusions reached should be on the balance of evidence. If interpretation of results or the evidence is demonstrated to be wrong then the conclusion can hold no water.

Krishna wrote: "but hypothesis comes first which comes from imagination only. then experiments occur and it becomes a law."

Go Krishna!
I must be really evil setting up a debate between a veteran scientist and a student, but I am rooting for the underdog in this debate!!!
Go INDIA!!!!

Krishna wrote: "but hypothesis comes first which comes from imagination only. then experiments occur and it becomes a law."

Exactly, Krishna. Some scientists of today just don't get how evidence arrives by first having an idea to prove.

I like your thoughts on these subjects, Krishna. Impressive!

Krishna,

You're right hypothesis comes first. But it should not be from imagination only. The best way, as Newton pointed out, is to stand on the shoulders of great men. Small incremental steps build great scientific theories and laws.

Unfortunately, this author seems to have bypassed the 100 years of research that goes before establishing proper theories and has gone straight to the press. The amazing thing about journalists is that they are not educated in science and will print any garbage if it sounds exciting enough. After all, their job is not to get to the truth but to make money by printing newspapers. The public end up getting caught in the crossfire.

John wrote: "Unfortunately, this author seems to have bypassed the 100 years of research that goes before establishing proper theories and has gone straight to the press. The amazing thing about journalists is that they are not educated in science and will print any garbage if it sounds exciting enough. After all, their job is not to get to the truth but to make money by printing newspapers. The public end up getting caught in the crossfire.
..."

John, I think you're guilty here of labelling a (respected) scientist with a different viewpoint to yours as being a quack with no other scientific peers who believe the same thing as him or support him. I also think that's a little disingenuous of you - either that or you've never read the diverse opinions and theories swirling around in the scientific community about the possibility of an afterlife.

I didn't originally post this topic to imply "here's a scientist who has the opposite viewpoint to ALL other scientists" - for the fact is there is a sizeable percentage of scientists who either believe in an afterlife or a form of God or at least have not discounted the distinct possibility of their existence. This is especially true with Quantum Physicists who are arguably the most likely in the scientific community to ever prove or disprove whether an afterlife exists.

Here's a study being conducted by Southampton University scientists that shows they have found evidence that awareness can continue for at least several minutes after clinical death which was previously thought impossible -- "First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study" --

There have been numerous studies along these lines and hundreds if not thousands of scientists have written books and/or essays stating their belief that there is an afterlife. Such scientists no doubt remain in the minority, especially outside of quantum physicists, but they are definitely not a tiny minority who can all be dismissed as delusional the way you repeatedly put down Professor Robert Lanza in this discussion thread.

I have no idea what the truth is myself and prefer to take a more agnostic approach to the whole thing. So don't misinterpret my criticism here: I'm definitely not saying any of your theories are necessarily wrong, but one of the problems I see with this group at present in relation to anything scientific is you are constantly trying to speak "on behalf of science itself". It's very transparent and obviously you're speaking subjectively rather than objectively.

As I've posted to you before, I love how you break down your own scientific experience for the layman like myself and I appreciate all your posts and sharing your knowledge. However, I also strongly feel you'd be far better off just stating your own (personal) theories without trying to speak on behalf of the entire scientific community all the time...That way I think your arguments would actually carry a lot more weight and you'd come across a lot less biased.

So in this instance, another alternative would have been to post a reply something like this:
Hi everyone, I (like many or even most scientists) do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever to show God or the Afterlife exists. But to be fair, there is also a large percentage of scientists who do believe in an afterlife - especially in the field of Quantum Physics. However, I firmly believe these scientists who hold counter theories to myself (and many or most other scientists) will all one day be proven to be completely wrong and science will universally show that there is no afterlife.

If you were to start posting along these lines I think these scientific debates we're having would suddenly become a lot more "scientific" which obviously by its nature must be 100% objective and unbiased...

Big History: The Big Bang, Life On Earth, And The Rise Of Humanity Hi everybody, I was listening to a guy talking on the radio this morning and he impressed me. You guys probably already know all about him, but Ms Ignoramous here doesn't. I have marked one of his books "to read". Sounds interesting.

Closer to the Light: Learning from the Near-Death Experiences of Children

Check out this 3 minute video on Professor Robert Lanza's science of biocentrism and how he believe it proves the reality of an afterlife: /videos/8538...

THE BIOCENTRISM THEORY...

"We are not measuring the world, we are creating it," claims Professor Robert Lanza.

For further reading try Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe and Rethinking Immortality by Robert Lanza

Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death



Is Biocentrism Dead?: Understanding the Universe and Nature



BIOCENTRISM: 28 Questions and Answers

Hi Lance thanks for this book up. I have not seen this page before. It seems your underground site is full of surprises. Let the adventure begin ! This field of investigation interests me greatly.

Tony wrote: "Hi Lance thanks for this book up. I have not seen this page before. It seems your underground site is full of surprises. Let the adventure begin ! This field of investigation interests me greatly."

Our pleasure Tony.

Biocentrism Posits That Death Is Merely Transport into Another Universe

I think Lanza is out of his depth but here is a website you may find interesting in relation to this topic. It is a map of Big world immortality

Dr. Robert Lanza, M.D on Consciousness and Biocentricism /videos/1204...

I don't subscribe to Lanza's ideas but you might get a kick out of this.