A book titled “Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe“, published in the USA, has stirred up the Internet because of the notion that life does not end when the body dies and can last forever.
The author of this publication, scientist Robert Lanza, has no doubts that this may be possible.
Lanza is an expert in regenerative medicine and a scientific director at Advanced Cell Technology Company. While he is known for his extensive research on stem cells, he was also famous for several successful experiments on cloning endangered animal species.
But not so long ago, the scientist turned his attention to physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics. This explosive mixture has given birth to the new theory of biocentrism, which the professor has been preaching ever since.
The theory implies that death simply does not exist. It is an illusion that arises in the minds of people. It exists because people identify themselves with their bodies in the first place. They believe that the body is going to perish, sooner or later, thinking that their consciousness will disappear too.
According to Lanza, consciousness exists outside of the constraints of time and space. It is able to be anywhere: in the human body and outside of it. That fits well with the basic postulates of quantum mechanics, according to which a certain particle can be present anywhere and an event can happen in several, sometimes countless, ways.
Lanza believes that multiple universes can exist simultaneously. These universes contain multiple ways for possible scenarios to occur. In one universe, the body can be dead. And in another, it continues to exist, absorbing consciousness that migrated to this universe.
This means that while traveling through the ‘tunnel’, a dead person ends up in a similar world and thus stays alive. And so on, infinitely, according to biocentrism.
This hope-instilling but extremely controversial theory by Lanza has many unwitting supporters – not just ‘mere mortals’ who want to live forever, but also some well-known scientists.
These are physicists and astrophysicists who tend to agree with the existence of parallel worlds and who suggest the possibility of multiple universes, known as the Multiverse theory.
Science fiction writer H.G. Wells was the first to come up with this concept, which was proposed in his story “The Door in the Wall” in 1895. 62 years after it was published, the idea was developed by Hugh Everett in his graduate thesis at Princeton University.
It basically states that at any given moment, the universe divides into countless similar instances.
And the next moment, these “newborn” universes split in a similar way. You may be present in some of these worlds – you may be reading this article in one universe or watching TV in another.
The triggering factor for these multiplying worlds is our actions, explained Everett. When we make certain choices, one universe instantly splits into two different versions of outcomes, according to this theory.
In the 1980s, Andrei Linde, a scientist from the Lebedev Physical Institute in Russia, developed the theory of multiple universes. He is now a professor at Stanford University.
Linde explained: “Space consists of many inflating spheres, which give rise to similar spheres, and those, in turn, produce spheres in even greater numbers, and so on to infinity.
In the universe, they are spaced apart. They are not aware of each other’s existence. But they represent parts of the same physical universe.“
The notion that our universe is not alone is supported by data received from the Planck space telescope. Using the data, scientists created the most accurate map of the microwave background, the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation, which has remained since the inception of our universe.
They also found that the universe has a lot of anomalies represented by black holes and extensive gaps.
Theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton from North Carolina University argues that the anomalies of the microwave background could exist because our universe is influenced by other universes existing nearby. And holes and gaps are a direct result of attacks from neighboring universes.
So, there is an abundance of places or other universes where our soul could migrate after death, according to the theory of neo-biocentrism. But does the soul exist?
Professor Stuart Hameroff from the University of Arizona has no doubts about the existence of an eternal soul. He believes that consciousness does not perish after death.
According to Hameroff, the human brain is the perfect quantum computer, and the soul, or consciousness, is simply information stored at the quantum level.
It can be transferred, following the death of the body; quantum information carried by consciousness merges with our universe and exists infinitely. In his turn, Lanza claims that the soul migrates to another universe. That is the main difference his theory has from similar ones.
Sir Roger Penrose, a well-known British physicist and expert in mathematics from Oxford, supports the multiverse theory as well. Together, scientists are developing a quantum theory to explain the phenomenon of consciousness.
They believe that they have found carriers of consciousness, the elements that accumulate information during life, and “drain” consciousness somewhere else after death.
These elements are located inside protein-based microtubules (neuronal microtubules), which previously have been attributed to a simple role of reinforcement and transport channeling inside a living cell. Based on their structure, microtubules are best suited to function as carriers of quantum properties inside the brain.
That is mainly because they are able to retain quantum states for a long time, meaning they can function as elements of a quantum computer.
What do you think about biocentrism? Does this theory seem feasible to you?
View Comments
Do we trancend to this other universe/world as we left this one. I mean if i die here now at 40 years old then would i present in the next world at 40?
We can clearly remember being children or seeing children being born in this life and we watch them grow...But if i came to "this" life as a baby and my mum carried me for 9 months then surely the life i had before i got here would have seen me die presumably as an adult.
That would pressume we simply dont trancsend to "Other" universes or awake in new realities after death.
If i started as a baby in this life but died an adult in my previous life then i would have in effect have been reincarnated and that cycle would/should continue life after life...No??
This article seems to suggest we may simply die but wake up in another reality where we are not dead and carry on as normal where we left off. If thats the case then stepping through this portal would assume we still be 40 years old (or whatever age death occurred) So how can we remember childhood?
All a bit ridiculous really
You are every single one of those realities
I've died multiple times. Trauma related events trigger flashbacks of other lives, past present, and future in other universes. I can see the forks and splits everyday. Meditation helps me connect, too, allowing me to "stick" events, people, objects, etc. in the universe I want to stay in. I can manipulate my past, present, future in parallel and congruently. Quantum playground.
I see you are similar to president Obama. You say things that have no relevance to the topic. We all know what a hypothesis is genius. Actually everybody learns these things in 7th grade. They are talking about multiple scientists (that's plural) and physicists having proof to support their claims. And every piece of proof is a piece of the puzzle. When you put the puzzle prices together it makes a whole picture. PROOF of anythings existence is not a hypothesis. The theory is what they all mean.
Intresting article but it is still 90% speculation with some very minor evidence (small ammounts of evidence but not enough to prove the theory) I think that this could be pissible but they actualy need to prove the multiverse theory before jumping to conclusions based on theories. Plus nobody has yet been able to transfer the soul or find what generates the soul in the body.
I think it's safer to say the chonchessness shuts down like a computer OS. Proabably still in the storage but not accessible after the body and brain dies. I honestly don't believe in the heavan/hell idea. I believe that is just a way to controll people who are not smart enough (werent tought morals) to know about moral values on their own then people who are tought that pass these teachings to their kids and so on. That's why society is so adapted to religious controll as opposed to being dedicated to science. They are just afraid of what would happen to the 'soul' after death.
This may be all well and good if you were lucky enough to be born with a healthy body and mind and have experienced a relatively happy life, (so obviously, you'd want this to continue indefinitely in some parallel universe). But what about those who've experienced a truly awful existence, either as victims of cruelty, natural disaster or physical and mentall illness ? I doubt that any of these victims, both human and nonhuman, would really want a repetition of their hellish ordeal. That's the worst case of "Groundhog Day" I've ever heard of and makes the idea of Death quite reassuring by comparison. And what about patients with brain damage or physical deformity - do they continue to exist in these parallel worlds in the same condition they left this one ? What a terrifying concept ! As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, (life after death), as it might come true !
(old post I know) If the theory is correct. Then even if you have a unhealthy body or mind now, it might be different in your "other" lives. The theory is based on small changes, but nearly identical and unlimited. So even your lucky to be born rich, healthy, and live a wonderful happy life, your other lives could be just the oposite.
I must confess that this multiverse theory is a bit more science fiction too me, but as long as it is not "proven" wrong, it might be real. Anyway it's much more plausible then the heaven/hell theory many religious people insist excist. But hey, that might be the case as well. No one knows for sure.
I think that the information used as "proof" doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions these "scientists" have made. It doesn't mean that some elements aren't correct, that the conclusion is not correct but merely that you can't reasonably conclude what has been concluded from the data presented. Usually other scientists "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Galen is often dismissed because of the concept of humors is considered laughable. However the concept of using small amounts of harmful substances to help people actually works - vaccines is an outgrowth of that thought. It also works for immune therapies for allergy treatment and exposure therapies. Yet, most western medicine has written off his work and attributed the results to newer people, whereas the underlying theory was created centuries before. The other thing is that medicine isn't an exact science and most practictioners don't care about the whys and wherefores, they are plodders just like most scientists. Physicists didn't need to know the absolute nature of subatomic particles to be able to build an "atomic bomb" much like chemists don't have to know what the effect of a drug will be on the body 20 years from now in order to make a drug that might help some people and harm others. Know the reality that you don't know a lot yourself that you can verify 100% and that you rely on the veracity and honesty of others for all the rest.
The problem supporting or refuting the argument of the multi-verse is one of limited intelligence of a human being. Logic and reasoning is a premise we all(most)understand, but other universal tools may exist in the universe beyond our comprehension which is biased by our human teachings. I don't believe in heaven/hell either, but immortality may be possible; I have belief that whatever our limited intellect can imagine is possible. The idea that the present physical life, being high or low quality may be irrelevant and not an expectation in an afterlife.
(my speculation) I actually think it is possible that an epiphany is a signal from a multiverse sent to a mortal for improvement in culture. Those classified as visionary may be identified as the receivers able/willing to execute the idea.