What Is Space?

Cham_BR-10

It’s not what you think.

Ask a group of physicists and philosophers to define “space” and you will likely be stuck in a long discussion that involves deep-sounding but meaningless word combinations such as “the very fabric of space-time itself is a physical manifestation of quantum entropy concepts woven together by the universal nature of location.” On second thought, maybe you should avoid starting deep conversations between philosophers and physicists.

Is space just an infinite emptiness that underlies everything? Or is it the emptiness between things? What if space is neither of these but is a physical thing that can slosh around, like a bathtub full of water?

It turns out that the nature of space itself is one of the biggest and strangest mysteries in the universe. So get ready, because things are about to get … spacey.

Cham_BR-2

Space, It’s a Thing

Like many deep questions, the question of what space is sounds like a simple one at first. But if you challenge your intuition and reexamine the question, you discover that a clear answer is hard to find.

Most people imagine that space is just the emptiness in which things happen, like a big empty warehouse or a theater stage on which the events of the universe play out. In this view, space is literally the lack of stuff. It is a void that sits there waiting to be filled, as in “I saved space for dessert” or “I found a great parking space.”

 Cham_BR-3

If you follow this notion, then space is something that can exist by itself without any matter to fill it. For example, if you imagine that the universe has a finite amount of matter in it, you could imagine traveling so far that you reach a point beyond which there is no more stuff and all the matter in the universe is behind you.1 You would be facing pure empty space, and beyond that, space might extend out to infinity. In this view, space is the emptiness that stretches out forever.

Cham_BR-4

Could Such a Thing Exist?

That picture of space is reasonable and seems to fit with our experience. But one lesson of history is that anytime we think something is obviously true (e.g., the Earth is flat, or eating a lot of Girl Scout cookies is good for you), we should be skeptical and take a step back to examine it carefully. More than that, we should consider radically different explanations that also describe the same experience. Maybe there are theories we haven’t thought of. Or maybe there are related theories where our experience of the universe is just one weird example. Sometimes the hard part is identifying our assumptions, especially when they seem natural and straightforward.

In this case, there are other reasonable-sounding ideas for what space could be. What if space can’t exist without matter—what if it’s nothing more than the relationship between matter? In this view, you can’t have pure “empty space” because the idea of any space at all beyond the last piece of matter doesn’t make any sense. For example, you can’t measure the distance between two particles if you don’t have any particles. The concept of “space” would end when there are no more matter particles left to define it. What would be beyond that? Not empty space.

Cham_BR-5

That is a pretty weird and counterintuitive way of thinking about space, especially given that we have never experienced the concept of non-space. But weird never stood in the way of physics, so keep an open mind.

Which Space Is the Place?

Which of these ideas about space is correct? Is space like an infinite void waiting to be filled? Or does it only exist in the context of matter?

It turns out that we are fairly certain that space is neither of these things. Space is definitely not an empty void and it is definitely not just a relationship between matter. We know this because we have seen space do things that fit neither of those ideas. We have observed space bend and ripple and expand.

This is the part where your brain goes, “Whaaaaat … ?”

If you are paying attention, you should be a little confused when you read the phrases “bending of space” and “expanding of space.” What could that possibly mean? How does it make any sense? If space is an idea, then it can’t be bent or expanded any more than it can be chopped into cubes and sautéed with cilantro.2 If space is our ruler for measuring the location of stuff, how do you measure the bending or expanding of space?

Good questions! The reason this idea of space bending is so confusing is that most of us grow up with a mental picture of space as an invisible backdrop in which things happen. Maybe you imagine space to be like 
that theater stage we mentioned before, with hard wooden planks as a
 floor and rigid walls on all sides. And maybe you imagine that
 nothing in the universe could bend that stage because this abstract frame is not part of the universe but something that contains the universe.

Cham_BR-6

Unfortunately, that is where your mental picture goes wrong. To make sense of general relativity and think about modern ideas of space, you have to give up the idea of space as an abstract stage and accept that it is a physical thing. You have to imagine that space has properties and behaviors, and that it reacts to the matter in the universe. You can pinch space, squeeze it, and, yes, even fill it with cilantro.3

more…

http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/what-is-space

WIKK WEB GURU

 

 

 

 

 

Quantum common sense

Wave Particle Duality means every elementary particle exhibits properties of both particles and waves.

Image Edited By Web Investigator. Wave Particle Duality means every elementary particle exhibits properties of both particles and waves. Duncan Walker, Getty Images

Despite its confounding reputation, quantum mechanics both guides and helps explain human intuition

by Philip Ball is a British science writer, whose work appears in Nature, New Scientist and Prospect, among others. His latest book is Invisible: The Dangerous Allure of the Unseen (2014).

Quantum theory contradicts common sense. Everyone who has even a modest interest in physics quickly gets this message. The quantum view of reality, we’re often told, is as a madhouse of particles that become waves (and vice versa), and that speak to one another through spooky message that defy normal conceptions of time and space. We think the world is made from solid, discrete objects – trees and dogs and tables – things that have objective properties that we can all agree on; but in quantum mechanics the whole concept of classical objects with well-defined identities seems not to exist. Sounds ridiculous? The much-lauded physicist Richard Feynman thought so, yet he implored us to learn to live with it. ‘I hope you can accept Nature as She is – absurd,’ he said in 1985.

Except that much of the popular picture is wrong. Quantum theory doesn’t actually say that particles can become waves or communicate in spooky ways, and it certainly does not say that classical objects don’t exist. Not only does it not deny the existence of classical objects, it gives a meaningful account of why they do exist. In some important respects, the modern formulation of the theory reveals why common sense looks the way it does. You could say that the classical world is simply what quantum mechanics looks like if you are six feet tall. Our world, and our intuition, are quantum all the way up.

Why, then, is it still so common to find talk of quantum mechanics defying logic and generally messing with reality? We might have to put some of the blame on the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. He was probably the deepest thinker about the meaning of quantum theory among its founding pioneers, and his intuitions were usually right. But during the 1920s and ’30s, Bohr drove a lasting wedge between the quantum and classical worlds. They operate according to quite different principles, he said, and we simply have to accept that.

According to Bohr, what quantum mechanics tells us is not how the world is, but what we’ll find when we make measurements. The mathematical machinery of the theory gives us the probabilities of the various possible outcomes. When we make a measurement, we get just one of those possibilities, but there’s no telling which; nature’s selection is random. The quantum world is probabilistic, whereas the classical world (which is where all of our measurements happen) contains only unique outcomes. Why? That’s just how things are, Bohr answered, and it is fruitless to expect quantum mechanics to supply deeper answers. It tells us (with unflagging reliability) what to expect. What more do you want?

Bohr’s ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ – named after the location of the physics institute he founded in 1921 – didn’t exactly declare a contradiction between classical and quantum physics, but it implied an incompatibility that Bohr patched over with a mantra of what he called ‘complementarity’. The classical and quantum worlds are complementary aspects of reality, he said: there’s common sense and there’s quantum sense, but you can’t have both – at least, not at the same time.

The principle of complementarity seemed a deeply unsatisfying compromise to many physicists, since it not only evaded difficult questions about the nature of reality but essentially forbade them. Still, complementarity had at least the virtue of pinpointing where the problems lay: in understanding what we mean by measurement. It is through measurement that objects become things rather than possibilities – and furthermore, they become things with definite states, positions, velocities and other properties. In other words, that’s how the counterintuitive quantum world gives way to common-sense experience. What we needed to unite the quantum and classical views, then, was a proper theory of measurement. There things languished for a long time…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/the-quantum-view-of-reality-might-not-be-so-weird-after-all

WIKK WEB GURU

SCIENCE AND THE PARANORMAL – THE QUESTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

BY Brendan D. Murphy, Guest Waking Times 

With so many people (many indeed being iconic scientific and historical figures) experiencing what they are supposedly not meant to, according to materialistic thought, the reasonable individual might be forgiven for wondering if there is something more to consciousness than our present “scientific” paradigms would have us believe. Can we go further than questioning the assumed legitimacy of orthodox materialistic theories which reduce consciousness to a mere epiphenomenon (by-product) of physical matter (the brain) and even—heaven forbid—suggest that they are not merely incomplete, but actually types of superstitions in themselves?

Etymologically, the word consciousness derives from the words scire (to know) and cum or con (with). Consciousness is “to know with.” So if you, the persona, cognize (to know or be aware of), who are you cognizing with? Is there more to consciousness than the Freudian ego and unconscious?

Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has written:

A scientific world-view which does not profoundly come to terms with the problem of conscious minds can have no serious pretensions of [sic] completeness…I would maintain that there is yet no physical, biological, or computational theory that comes very close to explaining our consciousness or intelligence.[i]

Indeed, in the past (and even today?) some scientists had taken the absurd position that consciousness is an illusion. This, while providing a nonsensical reason to ignore the problem of consciousness, obviously fails to sate the curious inquirer’s queries regarding how we got here and what we are doing here as conscious beings. Materialistic philosophy as we know it—derived from the mechanistic worldview—had, more or less since the dawning of the Age of Reason in the 1700s, steadfastly maintained that what we call experience arises solely as a by-product of the brain’s internal workings. No brain, no consciousness.

But is it really that simple? What about functions of consciousness that appear to transcend the cranial boundaries of our heads? The Age of Reason said that these forces had only ever existed in man’s imagination; only reason could show man the truth about the universe. “The trouble was,” according to Colin Wilson, “that man became a thinking pygmy, and the world of the rationalists was a daylight place in which boredom, triviality and ordinariness were ultimate truths.”[ii]

The Age of Reason glorified the rationalist, who, enamoured of his endless linear cogitations, was blinded to faculties of consciousness that actually transcended them: faculties that would have allowed him not to merely philosophize about deeper levels of reality, but actually access them. “This is the great tragedy of modern man,” wrote occultist, philosopher, and composer Dane Rudhyar. “His much acclaimed scientific spirit frees him of the compulsions of subrational and subconscious states of mind, only to bind him to an empty rationalism and a quantitative analytical intellect, both of which actually entomb him in a sarcophagus filled with only the mimicry of life. This sarcophagus is the ‘megalopolis’—the monstrous city.”[iii]

But something stirs in the bowels of the concrete jungle. An international online survey of paranormal experiences had met with an overwhelming response, according to Australian researchers in 2006. The survey, on phenomena that cannot be explained using the current “laws” of science, is by researchers at Monash University in Melbourne. A recent (for the time) Gallup poll revealed that 75% of Americans hold at least one paranormal belief, and a UK newspaper poll showed that 60% of Britons accept the existence of the paranormal, say the researchers. According to the researchers, the survey is not about beliefs or whether parapsychological phenomena exist, rather it is about what people have experienced and the impact it has had on their lives.Some 2,000 people had made contact via the internet within six weeks of the survey beginning. A whopping 96% of respondents claim to have had at least one brush with the paranormal. The exercise seeks to gauge the frequency, effect, and age of onset of unexplained phenomena such as premonitions, out-of-body and near-death episodes, telepathy, and apparitions. Results as of 2006 showed that 70% of respondents believe an unexplained event changed their lives, mostly in a positive way. Some 70% also claim to have seen, heard, or been touched by an animal or person that wasn’t there, 80% report having had a premonition, and almost 50% recalled a previous life.[iv] In May 2000, the New York Times Sunday Magazine published results of a poll conducted by Blum & Weprin Associates; a huge 81% said they believed in life after death.[v]

Virtually all of these beliefs hint at (and require in order to be true) the existence of other realms or dimensions in which consciousness can operate. A 2005 poll taken by the Scottish paranormal society showed that more people are likely to believe in ghosts and the paranormal than have faith in any organized religion. A Gallup survey taken in 2005 showed that about three in four Americans profess at least one paranormal belief.[vi] This is a massive amount of “paranormal” experience and belief—all of it depending on the existence of other levels of reality, without which such experience can only be labeled as delusion and fantasy.

Did you know that the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has now been amended so that genuinely psychic people are no longer considered “disordered”?[vii]

Intuition and Creativity

Srinivasa Ramanujan (below, left), born in India, 1887–1920, has been called the strangest man in all of mathematics, probably in the entire history of science. Working in isolation from his peers, this genius was single-handedly able to re-derive a hundred years’ worth of Western mathematics. As Michio Kaku reports in Hyperspace, the tragedy of his life is that much of his work was wasted rediscovering known mathematics.[viii] Most interesting to us, Ramanujan said that the goddess Namakkal inspired him in his dreams; in other words, the source of his creative genius was this other realm within his sleep, rather than ordinary waking consciousness…

more…

About the Author

Brendan D. Murphy – Co-founder of Global Freedom Movement and host of GFM RadioBrendan DMurphy is a leading Australian author, researcher, activist, and musician.

This article (Science and the Paranormal – The Question of Consciousness) was originally  published and is copyrighted by Global Freedom Movement and is published here with permission.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/06/20/science-paranormal-question-consciousness/

WIKK WEB GURU

This Psychologist Is Using A.I. to Predict Who Will Attempt Suicide

According to Joe Franklin, computers are far better than people when it comes to guessing who’s at risk

by Diane Shipley

The U.S suicide rate is at a 30-year high. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2014 (the last year for which figures are available), 42,773 Americans took their own lives, most of them men.

It’s a crisis, one mental health professionals have historically been ill-equipped to handle. Last year, Joseph Franklin (then a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard, now an assistant professor of clinical psychology at Florida State University) looked at 365 studies on suicide over the past 50 years and found that someone flipping a coin had the same chance of correctly predicting whether a patient would die by suicide as an experienced psychiatrist — 50/50.

If humans are so mediocre when it comes to gauging suicidal intentions, could machines be better? Signs point to yes. IBM’s Watson supercomputer diagnosed a rare cancer doctors missed, while in England, the National Health Service is trying out Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence for everything from diagnosing eye illnesses to finding out how best to target radiotherapy.

The link between A.I and mental health is less hyped, but Franklin and his team have developed algorithms that can predict whether someone will die by suicide with over 80 percent accuracy. He hopes they may soon become standard, in the form of software that every clinician has access to — and thus help save lives.

What made you want to study suicide prediction?
When I got into suicide research, I wanted to look at everything and see where we were. My hope was that would provide me and my colleagues with some more specific direction on what we knew and could build on. And what we found was quite surprising. We figured out that people have been doing this research where we’ve been very bad at predicting suicidal thoughts and behaviors and we really haven’t improved across 50 years.

Are there common misconceptions about suicide risk?
A lot of people believe that only someone who is showing clear signs of depression is likely to have this happen. I’m not saying depression has nothing to do with it, but it’s not synonymous with that. We can conservatively say 96 percent of people who’ve had severe depression aren’t going to die by suicide.

Most of our theories which say this one thing causes suicide or this combination of three or four things causes suicide — it looks like none of those are going to be adequate. They may all be partially correct but maybe only account for 5 percent of what happens. Our theories have to take into account the fact that hundreds if not thousands of things contribute to suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

More men take their lives than women, but more women attempt suicide. Are there any theories why?
One thing people point to now is something called suicide capability, which is basically a fearlessness about death and an ability to enact death, and one assumption is that men, particularly older men, may be more capable of engaging with these behaviors. But evidence on that right now is not conclusive.

Are traditional risk assessments getting some things right?
Talking to people, not making it this taboo subject, I think that’s great. The problem is we haven’t given them much to go on. Our implicit goal has often been to do research so we can tell clinicians what the most important factors are, and what we’re finding is that we’re just not very accurate.

What we’re going to have to do is this artificial intelligence approach so that all clinicians are able to have something that automatically delivers a very accurate score of where this person is in terms of risk. I think we should be trying to develop that instead of, you know, “these are the five questions to ask.”

How does artificial intelligence predict who is most at risk?
We took thousands of people in this medical database and pored through their records, labeled the ones who had clearly attempted suicide on a particular date and ones that could not to be determined to have attempted suicide, and we then let a machine-learning program run its course. We then applied it to a new set of data to make sure that it worked. The machine has now learned, at least within this particular database of millions of people, what the optimal algorithm seems to be for separating people who are and are not going to attempt suicide…

more…

https://melmagazine.com/this-psychologist-is-using-a-i-to-predict-who-will-attempt-suicide-696cd24bbc15

WIKK WEB GURU

 

THE MEANING OF LIFE ACCORDING TO TERENCE MCKENNA

by Dylan Charles, Editor Waking Times

The transformation from sleep-walking in the matrix to wide awake in the vast splendor of the universe is often triggered by a low point in life, a dark night of the soul, if you will. This is when the gift of being human is lost among the ever-present morass of confusion, chaos, madness and suffering. What carries us out of this morass is inspiration, which so often comes in the form of wisdom offered by our philosophers and sages, those among us who’ve taken the hero’s journey and have returned with a prize.

Terence McKenna is a contemporary sage of this sort, and he shared the unique wisdom he gained from his exceptionally deep examination his life and the universe in the form a neverending conversation with the world, described in his books, and recorded in hundreds of hours of talks and interviews.

In many of his talks, McKenna speaks about the driving force of the universe, which he refers to as ‘novelty.’ In short, it is the idea that the world we know is always evolving and changing in accordance with the creation of an evermore interesting and unique present moment than the one just experienced. Novelty never trends toward simplification, instead always accelerating toward maximum intrigue, being pulled ever forward by what he referred to as ‘the transcendental object at the end of time.’

“I have proposed the existence of an invisible permeating something, that is throughout all being, all time, all space, all bodies, all thoughts, which I call novelty. And the interesting thing about novelty is that it’s increasing, constantly. Science has not trumpeted this view, because science tends to look for principles which operate in definable domains. In other words the laws of chemistry, the laws of physics, the laws of gene segregation, the laws that describe the trajectories of artillery shells and falling bodies.

 

But, I submit to you that there is a overarching law which affects all reality and that you don’t need an atom smasher or extremely advanced mathematical methodologies to discern. It is self-evident in your own experience. And what it is, is that as we go back in time the universe if found to be a simpler place. If we go back a long ways in time, the universe is a very simple place. There are no cultures, there are no animals, there are no plants. Indeed if we go far enough back in time there are no stars and planets, the universe is simply a swarming ocean of energy.

 

But as we approach the present its as though the universe has undergone a series of crystallizations, out of itself of higher and higher forms of organization. And this is what I call novelty.” ~Terence McKenna

The Meaning of Life is to Find the Meaning of Life

From 1997 to 2001, host of the radio show Coast to Coast AM, Art Bell had a number of conversations with Terence McKenna. In one of these enlightening encounters, a caller asked McKenna what the meaning of life is. Here is his reply:

McKenna:

 

“You know in classical philosophy they said this is what classical philosophy is about. Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? These are the three questions, everything arises from this. Each leads on to the other.

 

I’ve tried to look at the question, where did we come from and have proposed theories about it. By looking into my body, brain with drugs and meditation and just analytical thinking, I’ve tried to look at who are we, and then the great unanswered question is, where are we going. You know, what is to be the destiny of the human race? Are we an episode in the biology of this planet, or will we build an eden strung along the Milky Way? And from there to yet grander and greater things?

 

We don’t know how much intelligence there is in the universe, but we certainly know that something has broken out on this planet in our species that is like nothing else in the order of nature.”

 

Art Bell:

 

“What if we are nothing more than a virtual zip on the face of reality?”

 

McKenna:

 

“Well if by virtual you mean that we are inside some kind of artificial simulacrum, which is some software being run, well then the question is by who and to what ends?

 

I could accept that. My life is so much like a story, that I’m constantly asking the question, who writes this? Who writes this stuff? I mean, who thought me up? Who thought Art Bell up and put us talking like this front of twenty-two million people?

 

That doesn’t happen in reality, that kind of thing happens in art of the very finely honed source, and so I want to know, what is the medium and who is the artist, and who’s paying for this production?”

Creating the Meaning

In these strange, chaotic and backwards times, sage wisdom shines a bright light on the colossal folly of such pointless darkness, offering a larger perspective on our current travails, encouraging us to contribute harmony, peace, kindness and happiness.

Terence McKenna’s comments tell me that we are here to choose and to create our personal and collective destinies, and that the possible outcomes are ever-increasingly complex: nothing is impossible. In essence, life is a story we are writing as we go, urged along by some inexplicable force that guarantees that our every experience will be folded into our future, therefore every present moment is of unfathomable importance.

He is warning us not to squander life without ever considering where we wish to go, that we should actively choose the story, rather than passively allowing it to be co-opted by our most destructive characteristics. He is telling us to wake up and envision an extraordinarily magnificent future for ourselves, and that once we do so, it will be possible.

About the Author
Dylan Charles is a student and teacher of Shaolin Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Qi Gong, a practitioner of Yoga and Taoist arts, and an activist and idealist passionately engaged in the struggle for a more sustainable and just world for future generations. He is the editor of WakingTimes.com, the proprietor of OffgridOutpost.com, a grateful father and a man who seeks to enlighten others with the power of inspiring information and action. He may be contacted at wakingtimes@gmail.com.
This article (The Meaning of Life According to Terence McKenna) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dylan Charles and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/06/12/meaning-life-according-terence-mckenna/

WIKK WEB GURU

Facebook Wants to Determine Users’ Emotions by Taking Secret Photos

Facebook

Facebook has just filed a patent for a system that will allow the network to photograph you without your permission – and according to some experts, they have every legal right to.

Facebook has filed a patent for a system that would allow them to tailor user experience by analyzing users’ emotions. Using the front facing camera on a person’s laptop or smartphone, the platform would take temporary photos of the user to determine their emotional reaction to stories they see on on the social media site and adjust the content accordingly.

The social media platform would increase content that people respond positively to, and reduce the frequency of content they respond negatively to. Even though there is already technology in place to curate a user’s news feed by taking note of what pages are unfollowed and other factors, the new system would assist in automating the process.

A spokesperson for Facebook explained to the Independent that filing a patent doesn’t necessarily mean the technology will be rolled out. “We often seek patents for technology we never implement, and patents should not be taken as an indication of future plans,” they said.

Though innovative, using “passive imaging data” places Facebook in a kind of public relations and ethics grey area. The company has already faced criticism for targeting ads to teenage users based on their comments and for producing ads for certain medical conditions allegedly using users’ search histories.

It was also revealed in 2014 that the site conducted an experiment to see if it could manipulate users’ emotions by adjusting the feed of 700,000 users, later admitting that Facebook “failed to communicate clearly why and how we did it.”

It’s hard to see the public reacting favorably to having their photos taken without their permission.

There has been some speculation about whether Facebook could face legal action because of the technology, but legal experts say the company’s established user regulations may prevent this.

University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelmann told the International Business Times, “I think it would be very difficult for someone to successfully sue Facebook over this … Some class-action lawyers may try in the hopes of negotiating a cash settlement, but the obstacle is the terms of service. Facebook’s terms of service say they can use data for research, and they don’t make any promises about giving you an unbiased news feed.”

In its Data Use Policy, Facebook reserves the right to use data for “for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.”

https://sputniknews.com/science/201706101054500176-facebook-patent-determines-users-emotions/

WIKK WEB GURU

Scientists Found That The Soul Doesn’t Die – It Goes Back To The Universe

According to two leading scientists, the human brain is in fact a ‘biological computer’ and the consciousness of humans is a program run by the quantum computer located inside the brain that even continues to exist after we die.

As experts explain it; “after people die, their soul comes back to the universe, and it does not die.”

The debate about the existence of the soul and whether it is immortal or dies with the person is an endless story that for centuries has occupied the time of the great thinkers of universal history. Its mysterious nature continues to fascinate different areas of science, but now a group of researchers has discovered a new truth about it: the “soul” does not die; it returns to the universe.

Since 1996, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an American Physicist and Emeritus in the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Sir Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, have worked in a Quantum Theory of Consciousness in which they state that the soul is maintained in micro-tubules of the brain cells.

Their provocative theory states that the human soul is be contained by the brain cells in structures inside them called micro-tubules.

The two researchers believe the human brain is in fact a biological computer and the consciousness of humans is a program run by the quantum computer located inside the brain that even continues to exist after we die.

Furthermore, both scientists argue that what humans perceive as ‘consciousness’  is in fact the result of quantum gravity effects located within the so-called micro-tubules.

This process is named by the two scientists “Orchestrated Objective Reduction – (Orch-OR).

The theory indicates that when people enter a phase known as ‘clinical death,’ the microtubules located in the brain lose their quantum state but maintain the information contained within them. In other words – as experts explain it after people die, their soul returns to the universe, and it does not die’.

peaking to the Science Channel’s Through the Wormhole documentary, Dr. Hameroff said:

“Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing; the micro-tubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the micro-tubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, and it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the micro-tubules and the patient says ‘I had a near-death experience.’ If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”

According to this theory, the human souls are more than just ‘interactions’ of neurons in our brain and could have been present since the beginning of time.

https://www.peacequarters.com/scientists-found-soul-doesnt-die-goes-back-universe/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=itfb

WIKK WEB GURU