# Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon

So again, belief in God is not merely belief in a fanciful creature who may or may not exist. It's belief in a creature and his surrounding supernatural universe, the existence of which would prove science to be false. (Because this would constitute direct evidence that the natural universe is not a closed system.)
Why do we have to describe small things as quantum systems?

http://physicspages.com/2011/01/26/the-infinite-square-well-particle-in-a-box/

For the infinite square well particle in a box problem, why do we have to solve for a wave function $$\psi(x) = \frac{sqrt{2}}{a}sin(\frac{n\pi x}{a})$$. Why does nature act this way?

By the way, I'm not tossing a grenade trying to disrupt your argument. I'm pointing to the quantum vacuum, to the Casimir effect, to particle wave duality, and I'm asking why does nature act this way? You use wave-functions to calculate probabilities; for example, the probability that an electron is in a particular place in an atomic shell. It looks like this.

Since this is a "life after death" thread, I can talk about ghosts. Why do ghosts look like this? The probability densities of hydrogen atoms AND ghosts/spirits have this "see through" "sort of there but not quite" characteristic. I see a resemblance between the two. How come particles in a quantum system can have this "sort of there, sort of not there" characteristic, but spirits can't?

Last edited:
Since this is a "life after death" thread, I can talk about ghosts. Why do ghosts look like this? The probability densities of hydrogen atoms AND ghosts/spirits have this "see through" "sort of there but not quite" characteristic. I see a resemblance between the two. How come particles in a quantum system can have this "sort of there, sort of not there" characteristic, but spirits can't?

Because atoms are shown to exist through something other than anecdotal evidence. The behavior of atoms can be measured and manipulated and mathematically predicted. Ghosts cannot. There is no substantial evidence to support the existence of ghosts.

To believe in God is to doubt science, and to doubt science is to be an unreasonable person.

And that's putting it nicely. Good clear and concise post.

Lately I've been of the opinion that the irrational mind simply can't hear logic like this no matter how well you predigest it into pap for them and stick it down their empty crowing gullets. I'm more of the opinion that they need to be repeatedly reminded that they are not positing a hypothetical. They're parroting dead superstitious lore. The difference is, the hypothesis has its crucial connection to physical reality - usually stemming from some physical observation.

But Dead Superstitious Lore (DSL) just sneaks onto the university green and tries to homestead there, as if legitimacy is something that can be occupied - like a squatter's claim to a deed.

Most of all I'm intrigued by the elaborate dishonesty in perpetuating all the convolutions that tie religion into its Gordian knot. The machinations that it takes to weave all of the elaborate hoaxes, only to arrive at a theory for right and honest behavior, is one towering monument to irony.

Because atoms are shown to exist through something other than anecdotal evidence. The behavior of atoms can be measured and manipulated and mathematically predicted. Ghosts cannot. There is no substantial evidence to support the existence of ghosts.

With just a few word substitutions, that's the transaction between a parent and a child, appealing to common sense and reason. Isn't it interesting how some kids never grow up - how they hold onto their early life ideation like a blankey? It seems so much more serious than simple immaturity - there's a kind of terrified response to having to let go.

Because atoms are shown to exist through something other than anecdotal evidence. The behavior of atoms can be measured and manipulated and mathematically predicted. Ghosts cannot. There is no substantial evidence to support the existence of ghosts.
There's no substancial evidence that OJ Simpson "did it" either; if only the bloody glove had fit. Some things exist but are too subtle to prove. What could a ghost possibly do to prove to the world that it exists? Sciencists can't prove that the wave-function exists. That doesn't stop quantum physicists from calculating them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function said:
Whether the wave function really exists, and what it represents, are major questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many famous physicists of a previous generation puzzled over this problem, such as Schrödinger, Einstein and Bohr. Some advocate formulations or variants of the Copenhagen interpretation (e.g. Bohr, Wigner and von Neumann) while others, such as Wheeler or Jaynes, take the more classical approach[14] and regard the wave function as representing information in the mind of the observer, i.e. a measure of our knowledge of reality. Some, ranging from Schrödinger, Einstein, Bohm and Everett and others, argued that the wave function must have an objective, physical existence. The later argument was recently supported by the demonstration (not peer reviewed) of a theorem stating the physical reality of the quantum state.[15] For more on this topic, see Interpretations of quantum mechanics.

I am merely pointing out that some things, like wave-functions and ghosts, cannot be proven to exist. Wave-functions are these ghostly fields that have to be used to solve QM problems. So the existence of ghostly things is permitted by physics. In fact, the laws of physics have no known ontology. One might conclude that the laws of physics are observations of some ghost like ontology (quantum vacuum or space-time continuum perhaps).

There's no substancial evidence that OJ Simpson "did it" either;

Exactly, that's why he was acquitted.

if only the bloody glove had fit. Some things exist but are too subtle to prove. What could a ghost possibly do to prove to the world that it exists?
It could try, existing?

Sciencists can't prove that the wave-function exists. That doesn't stop quantum physicists from calculating them.
I am not familiar, intimately, with the wave function. I have only a vague understanding of the double slit experiment. So I will leave this to the brainacs who grasp such concepts.
However, scientists cannot prove that I exist. I may be a figment of your imagination. They can only conclude from substantial measurable evidence that I more likely than not, do exist.

I am merely pointing out that some things, like wave-functions and ghosts, cannot be proven to exist. Wave-functions are these ghostly fields that have to be used to solve QM problems. So the existence of ghostly things is permitted by physics. In fact, the laws of physics have no known ontology. One might conclude that the laws of physics are observations of some ghost like ontology (quantum vacuum or space-time continuum perhaps).
Again I have no idea what you are talking about, QM is not a fetish of mine so I will leave it to those who do grasp the subject to address this.

By this remark I can only assume that you too have no reason to believe.

Sure.
Except that unlike so many others, I am an agnostic. Which is a position that is extremely difficult to maintain.

So again, belief in God is not merely belief in a fanciful creature who may or may not exist. It's belief in a creature and his surrounding supernatural universe, the existence of which would prove science to be false. (Because this would constitute direct evidence that the natural universe is not a closed system.)

Science has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt many times over. The veracity of science is possibly the most secure belief we have. So to believe in God is to doubt something that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, it is an unreasonable doubt. People who believe in God are not being reasonable. The fact that many scientists believe in God is testament to the enormous power of cognitive dissonance in human life.

As usual, I am in awe of your confidence. Not because I think you are right, but because you are able to say the things you do with such confidence.

Wow.

Sure.
Except that unlike so many others, I am an agnostic. Which is a position that is extremely difficult to maintain.
Yeah, I played the agnostic/atheist game for years. But the truth is, I don't believe that what most people refer to as "God" exists. And what I believe could exist AND that I am tempted to refer to as "god" is miles away from other people's concept. My concept of god imparts no moral revelations, no punishment or reward and desires no worship, so is therefore fairly irrelevant.

Call me whatever you want, atheist/agnostic, makes no difference.

As for the life after death issue... I see no evidence to support the hypothesis. And flimsy "evidence" such as NDEs is easily explained through known natural processes.

Exactly, that's why he was acquitted. It could try, existing? I am not familiar, intimately, with the wave function. I have only a vague understanding of the double slit experiment. So I will leave this to the brainacs who grasp such concepts. However, scientists cannot prove that I exist. I may be a figment of your imagination. They can only conclude from substantial measurable evidence that I more likely than not, do exist. Again I have no idea what you are talking about, QM is not a fetish of mine so I will leave it to those who do grasp the subject to address this.
I am sure that you exist; you and your Vulcan logic. At the very least, you are pleasant and deserve to exist. Most of these other jerks don't deserve to exist and should immediately be fed to the brain eating zombies.

The more I look at the wave-function, the more I think that it could go either way. Maybe there is nothing when we die. Then again, maybe the quantum noise is actually hiding heaven, nirvana and other planes of existence. Or maybe the old religions are correct, and it's God. Or perhaps spiritualism is correct and its teaching that God is an Infinite Intelligence that we are all apart of. Looking at the quantum vacuum, I'd say that all bets are off. If you don't like religion, then be an atheist if that makes you happy. At the same time, it would be stupid to leave your religion (if you like that religion) because some egghead convinced you that there was no afterlife (or no God). So when those eggheads bash God, just insert "bla bla bla Godhater talking bla bla bla".

As I continue with my argument that the wave-function can be the underlying mechanism of spirit/the luminiferous aether/quantum vacuum, I will use an example of a wave-function in an infinite square well to make my point. In an infinte square well, the wave-function is really really simple. It's an equation that looks like this: $$\psi(x) = \frac{sqrt{2}}{a}sin(\frac{n\pi x}{a})$$. Now I ask all of you this question: why the hell does nature act like a wave equation? In my opinion, it's because space-time is made of stuff that looks like wave-equations. My believe is that this stuff has the speed of light built into it. So space-time is made of this quantum wave stuff that has the speed of light, permitivity and permeability built into it. So why can't we see it or detect it directly? Because this stuff is ghostly (which means we can't detect it, but it exists).

In conclusion, I will say this: don't listen to the atheist eggsheads. They're probably wrong anyway. If their right, then it's a moot point. Worship or don't worship because that's what you like to do. Don't do it because some egghead (or a priest) told you you had to worship. Do it because you like to do it.

Worship or don't worship because that's what you like to do. Don't do it because some egghead (or a priest) told you you had to worship. Do it because you like to do it.
With this I can agree and will add, that you should not demand or insist that anyone who does the opposite of you is a bastard of some kind that should not be allowed to live next door to you.

It is the proselytizing of either viewpoint that creates animosity.

Maybe there is nothing when we die. Then again, maybe the quantum noise is actually hiding heaven, nirvana and other planes of existence.

It is interesting to me that you conflate heaven and nirvana. Heaven is a supposed to be a paradise. A place where desires (at least the good ones) are fulfilled. To get to heaven the idea is to not sin, which is to not act on improper desires. But correct desires are actually encouraged. The desire to do good. The desire to be be with god and other spiritual beings. Nirvana is different. A state where desires are nullified. You see Buddhists believe that desire is the root of all suffering. (as opposed to Christians who believe that sin is the cause of eternal suffering). So the end goal of buddhism is to remove desire, because desires are what supposedly cause us to reincarnate. All desires are negative. The root words in nirvana mean to extinguish (as in flame). To silence thought, because desire can not (supposedly) exist without thought. The odd thing about Buddhism is that Buddhists desire to rid themselves of desire. To shut down thought. It is a bit of an oxymoron.

Neither heaven nor nirvana sounds very desirable to me. Heaven is a place where you are completely satisfied. Sounds dull. Nothing to strive for. Nirvana is devoid of anything meaningful. It sounds like it is non-existence is most aspects.
Buddha did not deny god's existence, but he did say that he/she/it was not important to achieving Nirvana. And your idea of possibly being a wandering ethereal spirit is not very appealing either.

I think that it all comes down to consciousness and what that entails. Is it a an object? I suspect the answer is no. It has no quantity, maybe only quality. It is a process, not a thing. Self, spirit and soul are all things which seem to require the continuation of memory. I believe that memory dies with the body. In this model the consciousness continues because it is not quantified. There is no differentiation between my consciousness and anyone else's. As long as there is consciousness someplace or sometime, that has to be good enough. Like most things, death is a little good and a little bad.

It is interesting to me that you conflate heaven and nirvana. Heaven is a supposed to be a paradise. A place where desires (at least the good ones) are fulfilled. To get to heaven the idea is to not sin, which is to not act on improper desires. But correct desires are actually encouraged. The desire to do good. The desire to be be with god and other spiritual beings. Nirvana is different. A state where desires are nullified. You see Buddhists believe that desire is the root of all suffering. (as opposed to Christians who believe that sin is the cause of eternal suffering). So the end goal of buddhism is to remove desire, because desires are what supposedly cause us to reincarnate. All desires are negative. The root words in nirvana mean to extinguish (as in flame). To silence thought, because desire can not (supposedly) exist without thought. The odd thing about Buddhism is that Buddhists desire to rid themselves of desire. To shut down thought. It is a bit of an oxymoron.

Neither heaven nor nirvana sounds very desirable to me. Heaven is a place where you are completely satisfied. Sounds dull. Nothing to strive for. Nirvana is devoid of anything meaningful. It sounds like it is non-existence is most aspects.
Buddha did not deny god's existence, but he did say that he/she/it was not important to achieving Nirvana. And your idea of possibly being a wandering ethereal spirit is not very appealing either.

I think that it all comes down to consciousness and what that entails. Is it a an object? I suspect the answer is no. It has no quantity, maybe only quality. It is a process, not a thing. Self, spirit and soul are all things which seem to require the continuation of memory. I believe that memory dies with the body. In this model the consciousness continues because it is not quantified. There is no differentiation between my consciousness and anyone else's. As long as there is consciousness someplace or sometime, that has to be good enough. Like most things, death is a little good and a little bad.

Well if information and energy do not cease and are indestructible, than it cannot simply go away. The only problem for those who are hoping for the life after death, what if it is worse than this physical life? You live trapped only in bits of information (and physicists say with information about you it should be possible to fully recover yourself (???))..., just imagine that, I'd rather be dead, than this, because it's pathetic and it's worse than death.

The more I look at the wave-function, the more I think that it could go either way. Maybe there is nothing when we die. Then again, maybe the quantum noise is actually hiding heaven, nirvana and other planes of existence. Or maybe the old religions are correct, and it's God. Or perhaps spiritualism is correct and its teaching that God is an Infinite Intelligence that we are all apart of. Looking at the quantum vacuum, I'd say that all bets are off. If you don't like religion, then be an atheist if that makes you happy. At the same time, it would be stupid to leave your religion (if you like that religion) because some egghead convinced you that there was no afterlife (or no God). So when those eggheads bash God, just insert "bla bla bla Godhater talking bla bla bla".

As I continue with my argument that the wave-function can be the underlying mechanism of spirit/the luminiferous aether/quantum vacuum, I will use an example of a wave-function in an infinite square well to make my point. In an infinte square well, the wave-function is really really simple. It's an equation that looks like this: $$\psi(x) = \frac{sqrt{2}}{a}sin(\frac{n\pi x}{a})$$. Now I ask all of you this question: why the hell does nature act like a wave equation? In my opinion, it's because space-time is made of stuff that looks like wave-equations. My believe is that this stuff has the speed of light built into it. So space-time is made of this quantum wave stuff that has the speed of light, permitivity and permeability built into it. So why can't we see it or detect it directly? Because this stuff is ghostly (which means we can't detect it, but it exists).

In conclusion, I will say this: don't listen to the atheist eggsheads. They're probably wrong anyway. If their right, then it's a moot point. Worship or don't worship because that's what you like to do. Don't do it because some egghead (or a priest) told you you had to worship. Do it because you like to do it.

I could agree with this.

Well if information and energy do not cease and are indestructible, than it cannot simply go away. The only problem for those who are hoping for the life after death, what if it is worse than this physical life? You live trapped only in bits of information (and physicists say with information about you it should be possible to fully recover yourself (???))..., just imagine that, I'd rather be dead, than this, because it's pathetic and it's worse than death.

I definitely know what you are talking about. But our "information" is unlikely to remain coherent after we die. The information is encoded into our bodies, and those decay. Think of a hard drive that is tossed into a shredder. The bits are less and less associated with each other in in meaningful ways. Dust to dust, as they say in the eulogy.

I definitely know what you are talking about. But our "information" is unlikely to remain coherent after we die. The information is encoded into our bodies, and those decay. Think of a hard drive that is tossed into a shredder. The bits are less and less associated with each other in in meaningful ways. Dust to dust, as they say in the eulogy.

Well, I asked an physicist what would happen if you totally destroy CD where there was an movie or any kind of information, he said to me that although CD is totally destroyed information is still out there,but it is scattered and it needs medium where it can by fully reconstruct itself, basically information is scattered (decoherent like you said) somewhere in the environment, if you had some medium you could reconstruct any living entity. Basically you would need to put together pieces of information in order to reconstruct yourself, it just isn't practical.

Well, I asked an physicist what would happen if you totally destroy CD where there was an movie or any kind of information, he said to me that although CD is totally destroyed information is still out there,but it is scattered and it needs medium where it can by fully reconstruct itself, basically information is scattered (decoherent like you said) somewhere in the environment, if you had some medium you could reconstruct any living entity. Basically you would need to put together pieces of information in order to reconstruct yourself, it just isn't practical.
I thought a premise of the concept of entropy is that things can never be put back together. A coffee cup that breaks can never be returned to it's exact original form.

I thought a premise of the concept of entropy is that things can never be put back together. A coffee cup that breaks can never be returned to it's exact original form.

I was speaking hypothetically. Of course there is no turning back at least not on this side of the universe.

Well, I asked an physicist what would happen if you totally destroy CD where there was an movie or any kind of information, he said to me that although CD is totally destroyed information is still out there,but it is scattered and it needs medium where it can by fully reconstruct itself, basically information is scattered (decoherent like you said) somewhere in the environment, if you had some medium you could reconstruct any living entity. Basically you would need to put together pieces of information in order to reconstruct yourself, it just isn't practical.

That may be true. But you could also reassemble the CD in many different configurations. Most configurations would be scrambled beyond recognition. Some would be a CD with a completely different video on it. Another would be a CD that is square instead round. It is not the bits that are important. It is the organization of the bits that is important. So unless you have recorded the position of every molecule in the CD, there is no way to ever get it back together again. Like the story of Humpty Dumpty, all the Kings horses and all the Kings men ...