Survival Physics anyone?

[Dr B]

A favourite of the mysterians (I have also placed this under the survival thread).

Read digest and enjoy.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/pearson/survival.htm

I am no physicist - but if his claims in that area are as bad as his assumptions about the brain and brain function then it amazes me that many mysterians see this as definitive proof.

I would be interested in the comments of anyone from a physics background on this one as it is growing in popularity. Why trying to make QM as the explanation for everything?

Apologies if this has been discussed exgtensively elsewhere.

[Ashles]

This means that mind must vanish at the instant of brain death, a conclusion at variance with all religious belief and indeed contradicted by available evidence. This evidence has been building for over a century and is now so firm as to effectively constitute convincing proof of survival.

What evidence?

Many scientists fear that a successful challenge to their paradigm would discredit the whole basis of science.
Strawman

Quantum theory is the study of mechanics on small atomic scales where everyday commonsense logic seems totally inapplicable. One unresolved enigma is known as "wave-particle duality". Some kind of unknown wave system seems to control the places where minute objects are to be found at any instant. They behave as if they occupy a large number of places simultaneously in a ghost-like unresolved wave-state of limbo until the instant at which an observer looks at them. Then the waves collapse into the reality of particles.
No - once again 'observation' is misunderstood. It's not necessarily a person looking at stuff. Also as Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment demonstrates there is a world of difference between micro behaviours and macro real world objects.
Consequently no object can be considered to truly exist until the instant it is perceived! The extraordinary situation is that, despite the clear acceptance of the role of consciousness in creating reality, all mainstream scientists still insist that consciousness is nothing more than brain function and that brains are made out of matter. The obvious paradox, which never seems to be mentioned by theorists, is that matter could not, in consequence, really exist prior to any brain!
This is simply not correct and does not follow from his previous statements.

[Dr B]

I suspected it was full of holes at that level - and i dare say there are loads more.

My critique of it is that the notions of the brain are all metaphorical and nothing substantive. There are also some factual errors in there as well.

I assumed something similar would have been going on with the physics he uses as well. The mysterians have been pushing this stuff in the UK for some time now......

[brettDbass]

I'd never heard of Mysterians before. Is it this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mysterianism)?

Whenever I read the name, I keep hearing timpani.

[Alkatran]

This is one of the worst thing's I've ever read.

Let's list the problems!:
- It's a physics article written entirely in prose. No equations, no experimental data, just talk.
- He clearly doesn't know his physics. For example he thinks QM is incompatible with special relativity! QM is only incompatible with general relativity! He also seems to think the big bang theory violates energy conservation, even though BB starts after t=0, when all the 'stuff' was around already. There's more and more of this.
- He thinks adding negative mass along with negative energy will make things better and even says forces work the opposite way (pushing something makes it come towards you). For anyone who believes this, picture what would happen if two of these negative masses collided. They would be pushed away from each other and thus would accelerate INTO the collision, making the push greater ...

[Dr B]

I'd never heard of Mysterians before. Is it this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mysterianism)?

Whenever I read the name, I keep hearing timpani.


Kind of. It is a term used in consciousness research (though I did not get it from your reference). I think Jeffrey Grey Uses it in his book on "Consciousness:creeping up on the hard problem".

Its used to describe people who simply keep claiming - with no evidence and reason - that the mind is not the brain in action and cannot be reduced to it. In other words they start out assuming the mind can never be explained by the brain (never) - so by definition they keep trying to "restore the mystery" of mind rather than set about investigating it.

It can also be generically used to describe Woo as in many ways the underlying processes are the same (woo is a bit nasty - but good forum shorthand). I wrote an article many years ago for an amatuer journal entitled "The restorers of the mysteries" or something like that. It was about why some people went looking for mystery, and tried to place it in research where in fact, there was little mystery left.

Mysterians is a term we should all use more widely :D They want the mystery more than the fascination of explanation and understanding.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'd never heard of Mysterians before. Is it this?

Whenever I read the name, I keep hearing timpani.
I keep adding "Question Mark and the" in front. Does that date me?

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Consequently no object can be considered to truly exist until the instant it is perceived! The extraordinary situation is that, despite the clear acceptance of the role of consciousness in creating reality, all mainstream scientists still insist that consciousness is nothing more than brain function and that brains are made out of matter. The obvious paradox, which never seems to be mentioned by theorists, is that matter could not, in consequence, really exist prior to any brain! Yes, it's astonishing how "mainstream scientists" don't understand quantum mechanics.

But then again, they're so dumb that they can't understand how the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.

Or why it's impossible to destroy a building by flying a couple of titchy little jumbo jets into it.

Why is it that mere scientists know less about science than crackpots with websites?

[brettDbass]

Kind of. It is a term used in consciousness research (though I did not get it from your reference). I think Jeffrey Grey Uses it in his book on "Consciousness:creeping up on the hard problem".

Its used to describe people who simply keep claiming - with no evidence and reason - that the mind is not the brain in action and cannot be reduced to it. In other words they start out assuming the mind can never be explained by the brain (never) - so by definition they keep trying to "restore the mystery" of mind rather than set about investigating it.

It can also be generically used to describe Woo as in many ways the underlying processes are the same (woo is a bit nasty - but good forum shorthand). I wrote an article many years ago for an amatuer journal entitled "The restorers of the mysteries" or something like that. It was about why some people went looking for mystery, and tried to place it in research where in fact, there was little mystery left.

Mysterians is a term we should all use more widely :D They want the mystery more than the fascination of explanation and understanding.
Interesting, very interesting.
Thanks.

I keep adding "Question Mark and the" in front. Does that date me?

~~ Paul
Erm, you know, I think it does.

[Mashuna]

Yes, it's astonishing how "mainstream scientists" don't understand quantum mechanics.

But then again, they're so dumb that they can't understand how the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.

Or why it's impossible to destroy a building by flying a couple of titchy little jumbo jets into it.

Why is it that mere scientists know less about science than crackpots with websites?

Because they're all left-brain thinkers who can't see the wood for the trees. Or so I'm unreliably informed.

[Ysidro]

I keep adding "Question Mark and the" in front. Does that date me?

~~ Paul

I'll have you know I'm a spry 30 years old and I thought the same thing.

Then again, I've been told I have an old soul. :-D

[Apathia]

I keep adding "Question Mark and the" in front. Does that date me?

~~ Paul

You youngster!

This dates me!
http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/Mysterians.JPG