Quantum theory proves life after death...

Naya wrote: Science was born from a desire to prove the existence of the divine. What makes any one branch of science more or less valid than another?

Science originally meant:
"what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;"
"assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty"

Don't confuse that at all with science as it relates to putting into practice the scientific method (which is what modern science is).

I do not believe your first claim is at all true. The earliest science is closer to 'natural philosophy' than anything else, but more to the point the existence of a deity/deities is a given truth in almost all cultures. Why would science have to be invented to prove something that people already 'knew' was true?

I have studied Biocentrism and even included it in my Apprentice learning (as I was given it by Br. John). So understand me when I say I do understand completely what his work is about.

That being said when I gave it to Desolous he tore the book a new one

This is because while I had just finished my study on zen and was looking at it from a more metaphysical point of view, Desolous was looking at it from a very scientific point of view... and let me tell you... his work is not at all scientific. It's something I missed out on in seeing originally and has made me hesitate in putting it back in again.

I must reiterate what steamboat said.

I agree with Rickie

I think the crux of this argument is in the title of this thread itself. Quantum "Theory" "Proves" Life After Death.

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

By definition, a theory cannot "prove" anything. It can only suggest why something may possibly be true. Multiple theories can be used to support an argument, but they cannot be used to definitively answer a question.

Quantum Theory is just that, a theory. It also happens to be based on many other theories yet to be proven. Does this make it wrong? Not necessarily. What it means to me is that it is an idea to be considered, experimented with, and philosophized about, not summarily dismissed just because it is hard to understand.

Surprisingly an exaggerated headline designed to grab attention is inaccurate.

Should read something like: "Novel theory inspired by quantum theory provides possible explanation of life after death"

Anyway clearly not science not beyond hypothesis anyway, not even a testable one. Interesting speculation maybe.

Agreed theories don't prove.

There is similarity to statements Watts makes and the article.

There is also similiarity to L. McTaggart's presentation of The Field and what the article says about Lanza's "notion" (theory)
of Biocentrism:

(a) the article is telling me that a Scientist is not claiming proof where there is none.
(b) McTaggart does not claim proof either

McTaggart utilized peer review in journalism, checking back with the scientists interviewed.

I could understand Watts beliefs, interpretations and pointers with both IP material. . . . because of my previous studies and observations, and because I did some research on Watts and works outside of the IP. I couldn't conclusively say that Watt's and Lanza have the same interpretation of reality or Reality.

I would like to take a pass on Lanza's book. From what is stated in the NYT article, it appears Biocentrism is a blend of physics, biology, physiology, neuroscience and psychology.

the problem with science trying to prove religion is that there will allways be mystery.what would be the porpose of life if we knew everything.life is a mystery wraped in a enigma