Scientists Claim Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves to Another Universe After Death

biocentrism_bookCoverWebsite Spirit Science and Metaphysics reports on a recent book that suggests that life goes on after death.

A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“ has stirred up the Internet, because it contained a notion that life does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever. The author of this publication, scientist Dr. Robert Lanza who was voted the 3rd most important scientist alive by the NY Times, has no doubts that this is possible.

Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company. Before he has been known for his extensive research which dealt with stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.

But not so long ago, the scientist became involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since. Biocentrism teaches that life and consciousness are fundamental to the universe. It is consciousness that creates the material universe, not the other way around.

Read the full story at Spirit Science and Metaphysics.

, , ,

  • American Cannibal

    It’s true. We have proof now. And when you die, and your consciousness moves onto Universe #1X223KL990-14, you will be feel the everlasting joy of front row seats to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir signing Hallelujah, Christmas, forever and ever on repeat, amen.

    • Martha High

      it is appointed to man once to die and after that the judgment…it will come

      • American Cannibal

        But I’m a Hindu. So good luck with all that YOLO stuff. See ya next time around…

        • Lookinfor Buford

          Oooooo! Tell us what cow piss tastes like. I can never get enough perspective on that from the Hindus I know.

          • American Cannibal

            Oh no, I’m Hindu-American. I’ve never touched the stuff (sorry, but that’s nastee).

          • Cortacespedes

            If you’ve ever drank a nice cold glass of milk, you’ve tasted cow piss, guaranteed.

          • Calypso_1

            Probably rubbed into your skin and smoked it too.

  • Rus Archer

    takes over raw’s schtick
    with less sense
    and humor

    • Juan

      Nice sigil.

      • Rus Archer

        ha
        i made that for one of r talmadge lacy’s deals

        • Rus Archer

          but it’s true
          i can’t see through my skull
          which is why jesus gave me eyesockets

    • LunaS34

      I don’t know…I liked RAW’s explanation of quantum theory better…it doesn’t seem that RAW’s interpretation would imply other universes any more than changing your name to Jim would make you a different person (or maybe it *does*!)

  • kowalityjesus

    Know thyself and you shall know the God of the Universe?…anyone…anyone? That is Pythagoras, by the way, not Paul.

  • Cortacespedes

    Oh for godsake DO NOT tell me the Mormons are right.

    • Juan

      Hey, guess what . . .
      Really though, they may have only gotten a tiny bit right, but not all the other crazy shit they promote.

    • ÿ

  • emperorreagan

    Is there booze in this other universe?

    • ÿ

      Can I have soma instead?

      • emperorreagan

        Funny, that’s my wife’s name. And no.

        • ÿ

          I call bullshit on this other universe, then. Quasi-science be damned!

  • Paul Williams

    You should check Anthony Peake’s books – in particular “Is There Life After Death?: The Extraordinary Science of What Happens When We Die” and “The Daemon” – which were both published in the last decade and present, in my opinion, a far more fully-realised version of this theory.

  • MarkmBha

    I have died and come back.
    One does not “move to another universe”.

  • Juan

    And further back, Lao Tsu, various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, Patanjali, Heraclitus, etc.
    I’m just glad these ideas are getting out into the mainstream.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      I find it curious that people and movements always want to define either consciousness or physicality as the origin/prime mover of existence. Ive considered that it is likely a synthesis of the two that creates existence and its not necessary to single out one or the other. If there is a single point of origin perhaps it exists in the actual synthesis of consciousness and the physical world.

      • Adam’s Shadow

        I agree; I think this is akin to the theory that the universe pulled itself up by its own bootstraps.

  • DrDavidKelly

    What seems problematic to me is this idea of consciousness being something, being stuff. The theory claims (without any proof) that consciousness resides in our brains. I have a suspicion that consciousness resides nowhere. It’s not something you can look at, hold etc. I’m guessing consciousness is more like a resultant force like gravity is as a result of a body’s mass.

  • http://2012diaries.blogspot.com/ tristan eldritch

    In fairness, the guy’s name is Lanza not “Langdon.” I haven’t read the book, but it seems to me that there a lot of flaws and weaknesses in that debunking. For example, in the discussion of light and color, the author asserts “Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the
    properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are
    objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.” However, the author really makes no argument whatever as to how we know that one “sensory experience”, ie color, is merely subjective, and another bundle of “sensory experiences”, ie the observation and abstraction of the phenomenon of light into certain behaviors, is definitely objectively true (ie definitely true in a mind-independent sense.) Bishop Berkley asserted that the mind-independent existence of something can never be definitely established because we have only our minds to work with, and hence, by their very nature, mind-independent realities can only be taken on faith and never proven to exist. Look at how the author of the piece attempts to side-step the problem: “Give a thermometer to a human and to an ass: they would both record the
    same value for the temperature at a chosen spot of measurement.” This is a total non-sequitur; there are no temperatures, numbers, or abstract ideas in the world of an ass, so he or she most definitely would not record the same value; they would not record any value at all. That is to say that the thermometer establishes certain consistent and inter-subjectively agreed upon conventions of measurement in the world of the human mind; but to say these conceptions and conventions of measurement refer to objectively existing properties and realities independent of human minds is something the author has not established.

  • nicholas p.

    yodo is my favorite saying because you only die once and you live forever. there is no heaven its just a repetive cycle in which when you pass on from one life you begin again in a different life wether your an intelligent being, plant, animal, rock, etc is up to debate.

  • RyanSproull

    A response to this here – http://www.statehighwayone.com/2014/01/quantum-afterlives/

    Full disclosure: I wrote this, and I’m a grumpy old man trapped in a grumpy middle-aged man’s body.

  • rooster1957

    I am a graduate of Parallel University. They’ve got it right.

  • Ned Carter

    “Science”…

    You don’t vote for scientists
    Stem Cell and coning are nothing at all to do with physics, quantum mechanics, or astrophysics. He is obviously talking out of his ass.

  • al jones

    It’s a fact that most scientists think this is garbage. It’s just a bunch of new age wishful thinking. The article is VERY misleading in making it appear that this is a notion which is accepted by the mainstream, scientific majority. The orch-or ideas are the laughing stock of almost every credible scientist. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest even the slightest bit, that consciousness enters or leaves the body, and plenty of evidence to demonstrate that it is an emergent property of the brain. This “theory” is merely the same old religious speculating on intelligent design. They actually say in the article that near death experiences are evidence for their “theories”! In fact, the near death experience occurs when the brain is still alive, and when consciousness is altered. It’s entirely chemical and physical, with no reason or evidence to suggest that consciousness is escaping. Subjective experiences are not proof of a damn thing. These guys would have to come up with a way to measure consciousness, and establish that there is in fact “other” realities to venture too. So far, there is no way to measure or demonstrate this in the slightest…. Nothing that is to say except for peoples religious fantasies or drug induced hallucinations.

  • al jones

    What “scientists” are saying this?? It’s a fact that most scientists think this is garbage. It’s just a bunch of new age wishful thinking. The article is VERY misleading in making it appear that this is a notion which is somehow accepted by the mainstream, scientific majority. The orch-or ideas are the laughing stock of almost every credible scientist. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest even the slightest bit, that consciousness enters or leaves the body, and plenty of evidence to demonstrate that it is an emergent property of the brain. This “theory” is merely the same old religious speculating on intelligent design. They actually say in the article that near death experiences are evidence for their “theories”! In fact, the near death experience occurs when the brain is still alive, and when consciousness is altered. It’s entirely chemical and physical, with no reason or evidence to suggest that consciousness is escaping. Subjective experiences are not proof of a damn thing. These guys would have to come up with a way to measure consciousness, and establish that there is in fact “other” realities to venture too. So far, there is no way to measure or demonstrate this in the slightest. Nothing that is to say except for peoples religious fantasies or drug induced hallucinations.

    • Fred F. Cuomo Tondalo

      yes galileo can relate

21
More in Consciousness, Life After Death, Ontology
The Scientist: John C. Lilly

I don't know about you, but blissful idiot sounds attractive. All the more reason to avoid this state of consciousness. Via Wikipedia: John Cunningham Lilly (January 6, 1915 – September...

Close