# Website Outerplaces.com: Physicists Claim that Consciousness Lives in Quantum State After Death **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 8, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991 "2015-11-08T04:08:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/21 "2015-11-09T00:08:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, you need better evidence then, as mentioned the linked article has none, just opinions and even misrepresentations about the work that the scientists quoted are doing. Right, there is nothing there, and I’m happy to summarily dismiss Internet articles that ask, “But, but what if magic?” without any evidence or even basic understanding of what we do know about the universe. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/22 "2015-11-09T00:10:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s woo, specifically the kind called [non-materialist neuroscience](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience). See also [dualism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dualism) and [vitalism](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vitalism). > [@](#): > > As [PZ Myers](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PZ_Myers) points out in his response to Egnor’s [strawman](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Strawman), neuroscience and psychology are full of examples of how changes in the material properties of the brain alter thought Buuuut… doesn’t neuroscience tell us that we never see those material properties of the brain, because everything we see is a construction of the brain, we never see the real matter only a secondary effect in consciousness ? Why do we even make a mind/matter distinction when all we have is a mental construction of matter ? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/23 "2015-11-09T00:14:28Z")
I am not a physicist, but you don’t need to be to see that this is 100% woo. I amused myself briefly by trying to see if any of it could be construed to make the slightest amount of sense. It doesn’t. The first one seems to say that we store information in our brains. Yes, skills and memories are the result of complex physiological and neurological processes involving encoding, organization, storage, and retrieval. There is no “spiritual quantum field” and no ghosts, goblins, or magic involved. That whole paragraph is pure psychobabble. The second one uses the term “phase encoding” in a perplexing way, though perhaps with reference to the CNS it actually means something (though certainly not what is being implied there). Or maybe they meant “phase modulation”. Phase encoding is a term mainly used in MRI technology, where the frequency encoding (the frequency changes in the magnetic flux resulting from an RF pulse directed at the specimen inside a magnetic field) in combination with the phase encoding (the degree to which the changes become out of phase) yield the information that can be mathematically processed to produce an image. As stated, the paragraph is basically a word salad with zero meaning that tries to make some kind of linkage between the human CNS and “extremely puzzling and wondrous phenomena in the quantum world” (presumably, things like like superposition and wave-particle duality) based on nothing whatsoever. The third one looks like a rehash of the old “mind-body problem”, which (a) has nothing whatsoever to do with either molecular or nuclear binding energy, (b) has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, and (c) is not actually a “problem” at all. One may as well wonder with amazement how the pure logic of a computer program can interact with the physical world like your monitor and your mouse and operate your printer or control industrial robots. It’s a mystery! Must be all due to spiritual quantum fields! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/24 "2015-11-09T00:14:34Z")
> [@](#): > > The Relativity of Wrong > By Isaac Asimov > > I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.) Is why he never wrote any good porn. A few less lasers and isotopes and a bit more hot, thrusting ejaculations would have livened his books up. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/25 "2015-11-09T00:26:10Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > I keep telling people that about Leprechauns. But there is no such thing as Leprechauns. There is such thing as quantum mechanics and the field is still wide open. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, you need better evidence then, I agree with this. There is a big difference between ‘you need better evidence’ and ‘it doesnt exist’. Many of the replies in this thread could have been made 100 years ago about the General Theory of Relativity. Every so often someone makes a discovery that shatters current paradigms. The establishment fights to hold on to the older paradigms. Again I am not arguing that the article is truth. But some bright people seem to think there might be something to it. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/26 "2015-11-09T00:37:39Z")
In fact did Asimov ever write any smut ? I read a bunch of his books and never saw anything really wank worthy. Maybe the spirit of the sixties didn’t really resonate with him. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/27 "2015-11-09T00:39:18Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > In fact did Asimov ever write any smut ? I read a bunch of his books and never saw anything really wank worthy. Maybe the spirit of the sixties didn’t really resonate with him. Are you Leo Blooms sock?? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/28 "2015-11-09T00:53:39Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Are you Leo Blooms sock?? 😛 I have no idea but it sounds great. Larry Niven, though, he did drop in a bit of inter species nookie but sadly didn’t get into the details, which could have been most entertaining. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/29 "2015-11-09T00:58:33Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Many of the replies in this thread could have been made 100 years ago about the General Theory of Relativity. Every so often someone makes a discovery that shatters current paradigms. The establishment fights to hold on to the older paradigms. That is a bland generality that one hears a lot in all kinds of Internet science debates. The general theme is that “science could be wrong”, “Galileo was right and ‘the establishment’ was wrong”, etc. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if scientific conclusions based on a large body of different lines of evidence are to be disproved, then one requires at least a credible hypothesis with some substantiating evidence to even _ **begin** _ the argument. Without that, it’s just empty words and a waste of time. Nor is your assertion correct in comparing some of the replies in this thread (I cite mine specifically) to what might have been said 100 years ago about GR. The worst that a skeptic might have said is that it’s a revolutionary theory and there is (as there was at the time) only weak evidence to support it, but they would have to admit that it’s mathematically consistent and there is no evidence to refute it. But what I’m saying here is that the quotes in the OP are not a “revolutionary theory” – they’re actually even worse than wild claims with zero evidence because they are, as I tried to indicate in my previous comments, more like a word salad of random buzzwords that don’t even mean anything. ---
**Author:** ![Itself](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d07c76/32.png) [@Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/30 "2015-11-09T02:23:10Z")
Since general relativity inevitably comes up in threads like this (along with quantum mechanics, which I’ll save for another time), let me point out that it was not a morality tale about free-thinking independent discovers versus a hidebound scientific orthodoxy. Einstein developed special relativity to explain the _experimental evidence_ that the speed of light remained constant in any sort of intertial frame. It wasn’t the only such theory at the time, nor was it invented ex nihilo by Einstein; it built on the work of other scientists, including Lorentz, and it built on some of the ideas and experiments in what was then the somewhat new field of electromagnetism. After its publication, it was extensively tested and verified, and it’s an unavoidable part of (relativistic) quantum mechanics and other areas of physics. General relativity was developed later as an extension of special relativity to explain certain apparent paradoxes in it (for example, the Ehrenfest paradox) and to incorporate gravity into the theory. As in the special case, Einstein was not the only scientist with a general theory of relativity (the mathematician Hilbert came up with something similar contemporaneously); the theory was developed from and according to experimental evidence; and it’s been consistently tested and verified experimentally afterward. My point is that science isn’t just guessing. It’s the process of using experimental evidence, mathematical theory, and rigor to make quantifiable, falsifiable predictions about the universe. Anything else is just making shit up. > [@wolfpup](#): > > That is a bland generality that one hears a lot in all kinds of Internet science debates. The general theme is that “science could be wrong”, “Galileo was right and ‘the establishment’ was wrong”, etc. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if scientific conclusions based on a large body of different lines of evidence are to be disproved, then one requires at least a credible hypothesis with some substantiating evidence to even _ **begin** _ the argument. Without that, it’s just empty words and a waste of time. This. Running back to some claim about the “establishment” not being able to handle new ideas, or preaching about “keeping an open mind,” doesn’t make up for the complete lack of any data or evidence or even coherent theory behind the claims made in that article. > [@madsircool](#): > > But there is no such thing as Leprechauns. There is such thing as quantum mechanics and the field is still wide open. Quantum mechanics (as opposed to particle physics in general) was developed in the 1920s and early 1930s. If you’re going to indulge in woo, at least use something more current. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/31 "2015-11-09T02:31:50Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > But there is no such thing as Leprechauns. There is such thing as quantum mechanics and the field is still wide open. Yes, but there’s real quantum mechanics in physics where it has a solid theoretical foundation, and then there’s the interpretation of quantum mechanics adopted by popular culture. Quantum mechanics in popular culture is largely an outgrowth of attempts to explain weird quantum behavior in familiar intuitive terms using imperfect analogies. Some of the resulting perceptions of counter-intuitive behavior are often a lot like leprechauns, because anything we don’t understand is to some degree implicitly relegated to the realm of “magic”. But that doesn’t mean that either leprechauns, magic, or the claims in the OP are credible. The blanket invocation of quantum mechanics by pseudo-scientific quackery is a little like the same magical connotation of “radio” in the early 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![harmonicamoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@harmonicamoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harmonicamoon)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/32 "2015-11-09T02:41:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, COMET is just a TV network that was advertising at the top of the page. I have modified the title of the thread to indicate the source of the story. > > [/Moderating] Thank you. I didn’t open the thread with the first title. But the second one attracted me. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/33 "2015-11-09T02:42:18Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > But there is no such thing as Leprechauns. There is such thing as quantum mechanics and the field is still wide open. Sir, I urge you to keep an open mind until all the evidence has been gathered. The field of Leprechaunology too is wide open. The point I’m making is whenever I’m asked to keep an open mind what follows from the speaker is rarely evidence. Evidence doesn’t demand any persuasive techniques to convince. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/34 "2015-11-09T02:42:53Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > In fact did Asimov ever write any smut ? Not unless you count his limericks. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/35 "2015-11-09T02:44:54Z")
> [@Itself](#): > > My point is that science isn’t just guessing. It’s the process of using experimental evidence, mathematical theory, and rigor to make quantifiable, falsifiable predictions about the universe. Anything else is just making shit up. On that note, WRT [non-materialist neuroscience](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience): > [@](#): > > The quality of a scientific hypothesis is related to many factors but can generally be broken down into three main categories: the actual structure of the hypothesis itself and how amenable it is to testing; the actual evidence that can be derived from predictions and how close that evidence is to the predictions made; and finally how fruitful the hypothesis is in generating new questions, advancing knowledge and helping people and the world. Materialist-based neuroscience scores massive hits in all three categories. The structure of the theory allows it to easily be testable and to make falsifiable predictions. It makes specific predictions in a wide range of fields and the evidence gathered from testing these predictions correlates amazingly well with the original predictions. It has provided countless hypotheses and extended a diverse range of fields and sub-fields from psychology and biology to medicine, engineering and computational science. It has also provided a framework for offering real progress in helping people with neurological diseases, developmental illnesses and brain injuries. > > Non-materialist neuroscience has failed every single one of the categories. Its basic framework is unwieldy and does not provide any clear, specific, falsifiable predictions. What few tests might be imagined for it have all turned up evidence strongly against its basic predictions. It has failed to advance knowledge, create new hypotheses and definitely has not made clear how it will aid in helping us understand and treat brain injuries or illnesses. It has been a complete flop scientifically. So why the sudden surge in books and publications pushing it? We are dealing with a political and religious movement just as we have dealt with in intelligent design and creationism. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/36 "2015-11-09T03:59:29Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Not really. Going back through the decades the experts would have said the same thing about things that have been proven to be today. Our knowledge of how the universe actually works is likely to be very little. Now Im not saying that there is any validity to the linked article; but there could be. Its important to keep an open mind until all the evidence comes in. So yeah, it can be ignored? I try to make a habit of ignoring things until they get proven to be true-ish, thus I still ignore String Theory but have started to pay more attention to Dark Matter. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/37 "2015-11-09T06:15:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > But what I’m saying here is that the quotes in the OP are not a “revolutionary theory” – they’re actually even worse than wild claims with zero evidence because they are, as I tried to indicate in my previous comments, more like a word salad of random buzzwords that don’t even mean anything. Or as Wolfgang Pauli would’ve put it, ‘This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.’ ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/38 "2015-11-09T06:15:39Z")
Sorry to be stupid but I still don’t get why physicists talk about matter when psychologists say what we see is a construction of the brain. So all those experiments on matter are just phenomena of consciousness. And so with the brain itself. And matter. So what’s this materialist neuroscience if we never actually experience or see matter ? How do you prove that there is a non-conscious matter somewhere out there beyond our conscious awareness ? Isn’t that an unfalsifiable proposition, and therefore not scientific ? ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/39 "2015-11-09T07:12:59Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > So what he’s saying is that not even death will free me from this constant ringing? ☹ I know, right? Curse you, afterlife!!! > [@](#): > > Does anybody else raise their BS shields whenever they see “quantum?” :dubious: Yep. Well…if it’s calling itself real science and gives a quick summary that I can actually follow. Fiction I can run with it, and if it’s full of baffling maths, I’ll at least look to someone who understands that shit to say if it’s fake or not. But…if it can be summed up in one more or less coherent sentence… ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2015, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991/40 "2015-11-09T11:49:09Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Sorry to be stupid but I still don’t get why physicists talk about matter when psychologists say what we see is a construction of the brain. > So all those experiments on matter are just phenomena of consciousness. > And so with the brain itself. And matter. > > So what’s this materialist neuroscience if we never actually experience or see matter ? > > How do you prove that there is a non-conscious matter somewhere out there beyond our conscious awareness ? > > Isn’t that an unfalsifiable proposition, and therefore not scientific ? If you want to discuss the existence or non-existence of reality I suggest you start a new thread or dig up one of the old ones. You’ll find that most people acknowledge there is no way to scientifically prove the existence of matter, or yesterday, or anything at all really, including the existence of anything at all outside my field of view, or even things in my field of view, but that absolutely everything worth thinking about becomes more fun to think about if one pragmatically and axiomatically accept the existence of the world we observe. Or basically, we haven’t moved beyond Samuel Johnson: > [@](#): > > After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.’ > **[Samuel Johnson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson#Character_sketch)** > > Samuel Johnson (18 September \[O.S. 7 September\] 1709 – 13 December 1784), often called Dr Johnson, was an English writer who made lasting contributions as a poet, playwright, essayist, moralist, literary critic, sermonist, biographer, editor, and lexicographer. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls him "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history". > Born in Lichfield, Staffordshire, he attended Pembroke College, Oxford, until lack of funds forced him to leave... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/website-outerplaces-com-physicists-claim-that-consciousness-lives-in-quantum-state-after-death/736991.md?page=3)