Thread: My Theory on Death

Originally Posted by Semja

Agreed. Spoilsport.

Sorry ): As much as I like to believe in certain things, until they are shown to be the case, my scepticism will have the better of me.

In the UK people get sent to prison because a judge 'is sure', or 'beyond reasonable doubt', that they committed an offence. That is the burden of proof on the prosecution.

In a UK civil court of law the burden of proof is even lower: 'on the balance of probabilities'. If a judge simply prefers your version you win. We could be talking millions of pounds here.

I know where you're coming from, and admire your cynicism, but people have been sent to prison based on a lower burden of proof than you appear to have!

Originally Posted by Semja

In the UK people get sent to prison because a judge 'is sure', or 'beyond reasonable doubt', that they committed an offence. That is the burden of proof on the prosecution.

In a UK civil court of law the burden of proof is even lower: 'on the balance of probabilities'. If a judge simply prefers your version you win. We could be talking millions of pounds here.

I know where you're coming from, and admire your cynicism, but people have been sent to prison based on a lower burden of proof than you appear to have!

Civil courts don't sentence people to Jail time as far as I'm aware, and the implications are different.

Also, the court systems aren't perfect, and my scepticism is not perfect either, but I am willing to admit it. I, however, cannot really accept something that you are proposing on anecdotes alone.

It's not really that remarkable coincedence at all, when you realise that coincedences like this can potentially arise hundreds of times a day but fail, it's actually probable that a strange event like that will occur quite often. The probability wasn't even that weird, nowhere near winning the lottery for example.

This thread went way off topic.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Even with the circumstances, there is nothing saying that it must be a case of collective consciousness. Also, this is not something you can repeat to validate it being a curious phenomena. Hence why I'm not convinced.

Originally Posted by Semja

Agreed. Spoilsport.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Civil courts don't sentence people to Jail time as far as I'm aware, and the implications are different.

Also, the court systems aren't perfect, and my scepticism is not perfect either, but I am willing to admit it. I, however, cannot really accept something that you are proposing on anecdotes alone.

I have an idea that might help validate the possibility that collective conscious exists. I refer to collective conscious as the unified field of conscious, I just prefer it.

Anyway, let's look at collective conscious from the perspective of quantum physics. I believe you have a basic understanding of quantum physics so I will just cut to the chase and hope you understand.

Let's say we took the universe and wiped the slate clean. Everything exists in a state of superposition. No one possibility has been created yet. So the universe is like a blank piece of paper.

Now let's take a being and place him in that perpetual state of superposition. His observation of that universe triggers decoherence causing the many possibilities to become one possibility "for him".

Now let's take a second being and place him within that universe as well at a random point unique from the first being. Like the first being, he to triggers decoherence of superposition resulting thus from his observations, creating a possibility "of his own".

Each individuals frame of reference and observations are unique. Each being's views an entirely different dimension of time/space. Each being sees a completely unique world and a unique possibility. My question what is the common denominator that ensures that the two beings will see the same possibility? To me that is what collective conscious is. Instead of each being wandering aimlessly in his own direction see any of a multitude of millions and billions of possible realities, it ensures we all travel the same path viewing the universe from the same frame of reference.

In fact, to me that's what quantum leaping is; as in the show "Quantum Leap". Here's Sam in the present. He's linked to the collective conscious that exists in the present. The quantum leap accelerator takes his consciousness, disconnects his individual consciousness from the collective conscious of the "present" time period he is in. We will call it "Collective A". Then the quantum leap accelerator takes Sam's individual conscious and reconnects it to another collective state that exists in the past. We'll call this collective "Collective B" .

So let's say Collective A exists in 2012 and Collective B exists in 1953. For Sam individual consciousness isn't enough. Collective consciousness helps define his place in reality in reference to other beings. That's what collective consciousness is for. It creates a common frame of referance for us all.

i hope my explanation isn't too confusing.

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

I have an idea that might help validate the possibility that collective conscious exists. I refer to collective conscious as the unified field of conscious, I just prefer it.

Anyway, let's look at collective conscious from the perspective of quantum physics. I believe you have a basic understanding of quantum physics so I will just cut to the chase and hope you understand.

Let's say we took the universe and wiped the slate clean. Everything exists in a state of superposition. No one possibility has been created yet. So the universe is like a blank piece of paper.

Now let's take a being and place him in that perpetual state of superposition. His observation of that universe triggers decoherence causing the many possibilities to become one possibility "for him".

Now let's take a second being and place him within that universe as well at a random point unique from the first being. Like the first being, he to triggers decoherence of superposition resulting thus from his observations, creating a possibility "of his own".

Each individuals frame of reference and observations are unique. Each being's views an entirely different dimension of time/space. Each being sees a completely unique world and a unique possibility. My question what is the common denominator that ensures that the two beings will see the same possibility? To me that is what collective conscious is. Instead of each being wandering aimlessly in his own direction see any of a multitude of millions and billions of possible realities, it ensures we all travel the same path viewing the universe from the same frame of reference.

In fact, to me that's what quantum leaping is; as in the show "Quantum Leap". Here's Sam in the present. He's linked to the collective conscious that exists in the present. The quantum leap accelerator takes his consciousness, disconnects his individual consciousness from the collective conscious of the "present" time period he is in. We will call it "Collective A". Then the quantum leap accelerator takes Sam's individual conscious and reconnects it to another collective state that exists in the past. We'll call this collective "Collective B" .

So let's say Collective A exists in 2012 and Collective B exists in 1953. For Sam individual consciousness isn't enough. Collective consciousness helps define his place in reality in reference to other beings. That's what collective consciousness is for. It creates a common frame of referance for us all.

i hope my explanation isn't too confusing.

I don't think this makes the whole idea of collective consciousness any bit more valid, BUT it does clarify the idea, so I get what you are saying.

However, all the examples Semja were bringing up don't really constitute as moments of collective consciousness in the sense you are proposing, which was why I was being sceptical.

Hope this clears up my angle.