Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon

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.


Are you in awe of his confidence or do you resent it? Because it seems you challenge anyone who speaks with confidence on anything. I suspect that you are lacking in confidence on any issue, and can't stand the idea of other people having confidence. It must suck being so damned unsure of anything.
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 ...

There is one more possibility from holographic principle:
Let's suppose you throw a wallet in the black hole (which is 3-Dimensional), the information of this wallet would be stored just outside the event horizon of the black hole (2-dimensional), however all informations about this wallet and and all of its contents are stored. This gave theorists idea that entire universe might be just another hologram, working on this same principle. meaning all informations of entire universe, galaxies, space, time are stored on it's outside surface/"event horizon".
That would mean that information of every living entity is also stored on its outside surface.

But wouldn't that mean that the outside surface of Earth's event horizon (which is 2 dimensional) should also be full of informations about every process, whatever drops from space on the earth's surface?
It doesn't make any sense from where can you get this information on Earth outer layer?

One more thing I have to mention, I remember when I was watching National Geographic and they talked about ghosts. What scientists shown is that walls really do have ears.
They have shown that magnetic field/fields of an room (actually every room) stores information about voices of people, when you magnify it very, very much (I forgot how much), you'll hear their voices, basically these voices weren't ghosts, they were from people who were there in the bar.
Now what does this all mean?

I was also referring to both quantum information and classic information:
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.

It seems to me that it would require time travel or a star trek transporter. I think it's safe to say, neither of these things will be a reality in our lifetimes.
Speak for yourself T'Pol!

Surely you don't think we will accomplish time travel or transporters within the lifetime of the youngest participant of this forum(that is what I meant by OUR lifetime). After all you said that you think we(usa) will be a third world country in about 10 years.
There is one more possibility from holographic principle:

Yes that is a very interesting subject. It does seem like there is a connection between information and the geometry of space. And that means gravity and entropy are somehow connected. I don't pretend to understand any of it though. But it a good point.
Surely you don't think we will accomplish time travel or transporters within the lifetime of the youngest participant of this forum(that is what I meant by OUR lifetime). After all you said that you think we(usa) will be a third world country in about 10 years.

When it comes to time travel it’s irrelevant if we (our age group) discovers it or not, as long as the people who discover it could come back to teach it to this generation. Thus altering the future discovery of time travel, and then preventing the future people from coming back to teach us…..oh wait….my head hurts now.
Surely you don't think we will accomplish time travel or transporters within the lifetime of the youngest participant of this forum(that is what I meant by OUR lifetime). After all you said that you think we(usa) will be a third world country in about 10 years.

Doesn't matter, I was visited by the future Enterprise some time ago. They thought they erased my memory, but it didn't work, must have been the xeophonic radiation interfering with their magnetic neuro-stimulator.
Doesn't matter, I was visited by the future Enterprise some time ago. They thought they erased my memory, but it didn't work, must have been the xeophonic radiation interfering with their magnetic neuro-stimulator.

Spidy, sometimes I just wanna give you a hug. Don't tell Neverfly, he may not take it right.
More on "near death" and actual death...

Scientist Shows What Happens To 'Soul' After Death (VIDEO) from The Huffington Post
In a video that recently aired on “Through the Wormhole” narrated by Morgan Freeman on the TV channel Science, Dr. Hameroff claims, "I believe that consciousness, or its immediate precursor proto-consciousness, has been in the universe all along, perhaps from the Big Bang."

Understanding where consciousness comes from could solve mysteries such as what happens to the "soul" during near-death experiences, or when a person dies.

Dr. Hameroff goes on to share hypothetical scenarios derived from the Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction) theory of consciousness that he and Roger Penrose, mathematician and physicist, proposed in 1996. According to the theory, consciousness is derived from microtubules within brain cells (neurons) which are sites of quantum processing.

But what exactly is consciousness, where does it come from and can it be scientifically proven? Dr. Stuart Hameroff, MD, is Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and the Director of the Center of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona and much of his research over the past few decades has been in the field of quantum mechanics, dedicated to studying consciousness.

According to Dr. Hameroff, in a near-death experience, when the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, and the microtubules lose their quantum state, the quantum information in the microtubules isn't destroyed. It's distributed to the universe at large, and if the patient is revived, the quantum information can go back to the microtubules. In this event, the patient says they had something like a near-death experience, i.e. they saw white light or a tunnel or floated out of their body. In the event that the patient is not revived, "it's possible that the quantum information can can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul," he said.

The Orch-OR theory of consciousness remains controversial in the scientific community. Many scientists and physicists have challenged it, including MIT physicist Max Tegmark, who wrote a paper in 2000 that was widely cited.

Still, Dr. Hameroff believes that "nobody has landed a serious blow to the theory. It's very viable."

Quantum souls. OK. Quackery?
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) :cool: 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.

That is wrong approach, you have faith in science, so you're religious like it or not, everything whatever has to do with faith is form of religion, so is science. Scientists believe in that science and technology will solve everything, that's blind fate, until people change themselves they won't be able solve anything, it's the problem with our mentality, not with science and technology. watch documentary Surviving progress, the human ability to ask why is double-edge sword, because it has enabled us to grow in progress with science and technology, but that same question "why", economic, scientific and technological progress has also negative impact on our species.

We're stuck in in believing that more complex science and technology will solve all the questions we ask but deeper we dig, the more complex problems and questions that are solved raise a dozen new even more complex problems and questions, soon this will not be possible, because science and technology will become too complex to understand to continue this scientific, technological, economic progress. We're very close to that upper limit.

You have to be objective and also be critical to science and technology itself that are present now, otherwise there is nothing to improve in science and technology, but scientists are not like this, they like their system, and if anything doesn't agree with the present science/technology, it's wrong, because it's that's the way what they say and it cannot be changed, if something is against scientists learned all science that they have learned to this will fall apart, and that's the main reason why they don't want to change this behavior. Also, science is a big business, so it's those who have profit force use who don't have much profit to buy their stuff, because it's "better", it's not better in any way, they simply want to sell it whatever they want, and we have no right to refuse it.

Scientists and high-tech freaks use us as lab rats and use marketing this is good for you but is it really, more complex it becomes the less good it is, that's a fact. They should have invented simpler things not more complex so that we can all live in simpler world, not more complex. Because of this ever-increasing complexity of life, science and technology we have today, this civilization will eventually fall apart.

Scientists are all blind believers in science and technology, I'm not, as much as I'm not believer in religion.

You claim that religion is evil but you're evil you attack those who have different opinions and those who believe in irrational and invisible things, beings and etc.
And why would you ban them to believe in something irrational, you have absolutely no right to do that.
It means I should ban all of you to believe in science.
You're no different than church in the Dark ages was, just because something is right it doesn't mean you can ban the wrong, if people feel better with the approach you disagree with.
It's people's choice not yours.
Who are you to call yourselves rational beings, if you actually don't know anything beyond measurement and detection and mathematical equation? People's lives do not follow rules like physics and math do.
Deal with it.
Science has become dogma-like religion, because only if you agree with the system, you're ok, if you don't you're garbage. Everything what does not go alone with mathematical equations and cannot be proven experimentally is wrong, no it's not because you cannot definitely disprove something, that's the biggest weakness science has, it's limited, so who you're to push alternative explanations, if you can't prove anything scientifically 100%...
Shame on you.
You say I attack you, but it is you who started first I'm just defending myself.
You're looking for evidences, some things cannot be proven that they exist but yet they do work.
This is why the big bang hypothesis will never be proven and I noticed that astrophysicists are stuck with this like with faith. the other hypothesis is string hypothesis for example.

You always blame religion and not science, science is faaar worse than religion because it has the potential to wipe out the entire human race, while religion can't.
You talk about pedophiles in churches and etc in religion, but yet forget the key difference:
Religion and science are abstract concepts, ideas, economical and political systems and etc.. and therefore cannot be either good, bad or evil. People are the factors who use either religion, science, politics, economics and etc. in a good, bad or evil way.

Also, who say there are no pedophiles among scientists, you are implying that scientists are good, sure so were dr. Josef Mengele, so were the scientists who helped to win various wars, scientists in wars are indirectly responsible for so many deaths, they didn't go to war themselves to fight the enemy, but they have created superior science and technology to help soldiers to kill more people to win the war, that's the same as being religious and go into war against any other religion or anyone else who thinks otherwise.

You can't blame those abstract systems for something that people misuse, it's people's fault not religion.
People are simply evil majority of them especially politicians, bankers, Wall street but you also have evil scientists and popes, it all depends on humans who misuse those ideas, systems, concepts, you're totally wrong because it is not the philosophy, abstract concept, idea and etc. themselves that are good, bad or evil, it's humans who use it how they want to, either is it good, bad or evil.
Last edited:
You trust your experience and we will trust ours. Is that fair? It seems you want us to trust YOUR experience. Sorry that isn't going to happen. I have more than enough experience to know that perceptions are not everything. And that the human mind is fuckign amazing and can entertain itself in a myriad of ways. But I don't expect you to understand that. I don't want you to. I want you to go on living with whatever beliefs give you hope and sense of purpose so that you can be a functional human being.

But if you put your ideas out here as fact, we will tell you what we think of your ideas just as you are free to tell us what you think of ours. If you don't like being laughed at, stay quiet. We all run the risk of ridicule when we post here. If you can't take it. Piss off.

You were the first who attacked me before I attacked you this is why I responded. Read my 592nd post.
This is yet another reason why all scientists should be required to take a couple of classes in communication before being allowed to speak to anyone but another scientist.

I've posted this before, probably on the Linguistics board because it's about the definition of words.

A hypothesis is an explanation for a phenomenon that is supported by a moderate amount of evidence. Not enough to be convincing, but enough to keep investigating.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. I use the language of the law because lawyers have to be precise in their wording whereas scientists, apparently, don't think they have to.

A theory is as far as anything can go. No matter how convincingly a theory has been proven, we never know for sure that tomorrow new evidence won't turn up that will falsify it. If we've done out work right, the probability of that occurring is so small that it's safe for people to presume that it's true. In fact, what's more likely than falsification is that it will be modified or enhanced by new evidence. This is how Newton's laws were impacted by Einstein's research. All of us laymen run our lives as though Newton's laws were still correct, because the errors Einstein identified are so small that we cannot possibly notice them, since we never travel much faster than one millionth of the speed of light.

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.

No, the point here is that one has a very powerful reason to believe that God does not exist. To believe in God is to doubt science, and to doubt science is to be an unreasonable person.

Notice that scientists never set out to prove each other wrong. That's the telltale that indicates you're talking to a crackpot, not a scientist. Scientists just notice new phenomena and conduct experiments to figure out what causes them. Once in a blue moon it steps on somebody else's theory, but that was not the goal.

Einstein didn't rub his hands together, crack a diabolical smile, and in his best Dr. Frankenstein voice cackle, "I'm going to prove Newton wrong and be famous! Hehe haha hoho hoohoo!" He just started looking for the reason behind some strange phenomena he had observed, using instruments that hadn't been invented in Newton's time so Newton could never have seen them himself.

Read my 592nd post.