A new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think.
A while ago, scientists reported they found the first evidence of parallel universe.
This discovery lead us to a thought-provoking subject called “Biocentrism”
Robert Lanza, M.D, scientist, theoretician and author of “Biocentrism” – How Life and
Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe thinks there are many reasons why we won’t die.
To him death is not the end, as so many of us think. We believe we will die, because that is what we have been taught, Robert Lanza says in his book.
Will You Continue To Live In A Parallel Universe?
There are many scientific experiments that seriously question the term death, as we know it.
According to quantum physics certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability.
The “many-worlds” interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe, what is generally called the “multiverse”.
Robert Lanza has taken these theories even further.
He believes that “there are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe.
Your Energy Never Dies
Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them.
Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling – the ‘Who am I?’- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn’t go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed.”
This energy can transcend from one world to another.
The Importance Of Consciousness
“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?
Given that different possible quantum developments of the universe result in many different observers, it becomes possible, based on the study of our world, to decide between the two views. Technically, the heart of the argument stems from the notion that improbable universes truly exist in Everett’s hypothesis (in small numbers), although in the Copenhagen interpretation, they are only (generally speaking) possibilities without any material reality.
The central idea may be understood very simply using an analogy. Let us imagine a bag containing a million black balls and only one white ball. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, all of these balls are essentially the same.
Testing Everett’s improbable hypothesis
And for good reason: Everett’s theory of “multiple worlds” turns out to be more simple, coherent and elegant than the standard view, known as the Copenhagen interpretation, in which mathematical contortions are required to avoid the “living-dead” cat conclusion. Yet it is clear that the ultimate test would be an experiment.Quantum mechanics: a dirty little secret
Physicists
like pictures. To be honest, 80% of quantum mechanics work just
involves drawing a series of pictures that show how something we’re
interested in changes over time.
But
physicists have fragile egos and don’t want you to know that. So they
put special boxes (called “kets”) that look like this: ⎜ 〉around their
pictures to make themselves think that they’re doing something more
complicated than they actually are.
More than a century after its discovery, quantum mechanics—which describes the behavior of physical entities at the scale of elementary particles—is still not clearly understood, despite the fact that its most disturbing predictions have until now always been completely borne out by measurement. Faced with the difficulty of giving meaning to this grand theory, we must content ourselves with simply accepting its three most important tenets. First, abandon the determinism of classical physics in favor of a probabilistic view; next, consider that many apparently continuous values, such as, metaphorically, the altitude of a person on a hill—are in reality discontinuous—comparable to the altitude of this same person in a multi-story building; and finally, accept that certain particles are in fact ubiquitous and may be present in several places or in several different states at the same time
Given that different possible quantum developments of the universe result in many different observers, it becomes possible, based on the study of our world, to decide between the two views. Technically, the heart of the argument stems from the notion that improbable universes truly exist in Everett’s hypothesis (in small numbers), although in the Copenhagen interpretation, they are only (generally speaking) possibilities without any material reality.
By sujeet Kumar
