Hijack from evidence for life after death

[Near-Death Webmaster]

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Repeat after me, if necessary (To yourself. Not here): The topic here is life after death, not survival of consciousness. (Also, models are not evidence).

 

But evidence from quantum physics suggestive of life after death = Evidence from quantum physics suggestive of survival of consciousness after death.

What's the difference? And why aren't these quantum theoretical models evidence supporting the afterlife hypothesis?

[ajb]

But evidence from quantum physics suggestive of life after death ...

Bad form replying to a mod note.

 

Anyway there is no evidence from quantm physics about life after death.

[Strange]

 

But evidence from quantum physics suggestive of life after death

 

 

There is no such evidence.

[Near-Death Webmaster]

 

 

There is no such evidence.

 

What about the first law of thermodynamics? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted? Since the mind involves quantum mechanical processes occurring in the brain as a form of energy, then according to the first law of thermodynamics, this energy cannot be destroyed. Nor was it created because this energy was first passed along from mother to fetus. Although the first law doesn't offer PROOF of the mind surviving after death, doesn't my argument offer EVIDENCE supporting the HYPOTHESIS of life after death?

 

Evidence is not the same as proof. If a person say's "There is no evidence from quantum physics of life after death", shouldn't they back it up with facts? The burden of proof applies both ways does it not? Please advise.

[Delta1212]

Consciousness is not a form of energy, and your brain doesn't run on mystical energy transferred from mother to child. It runs on energy from the food you eat, that was mostly converted into useable form from sunlight by plants.

[swansont]

The thread originator said "afterlife" in a subsequent post. Not persistence of consciousness. Which is why this was split off into the trash.