Technology 3 min read

There is Life After Death According to Quantum Physics

Theoretical physics has led to the discovery of many things, quantum physics being one of them--could biocentrism indicate that there is life after death?

According to quantum physics, death is not necessarily the end. | Shutterstock

According to quantum physics, death is not necessarily the end. | Shutterstock

According to quantum physics, life goes on in a parallel universe regardless of what happens to it in this one.

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me.” Wrote Einstein in a condolence letter upon the death of his close friend, Michele Besso, in 1955.

“That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Einstein died merely a month after he wrote the letter and, apparently, he was right, as new scientific theories suggest that death, just like life, is but an illusion.

Quantum physics laws tell us that “life” is not made of matter but of vibrations that escape time and space.

Biocentrism: the Theory of Everything (?)

What happens when we die? Where does the human conscience come from? Does the brain perceive or create (then perceive) what we call reality? If consciousness doesn’t originate from the brain, then the presence of physical envelopes isn’t crucial for it to exist.

According to Max Planck, Nobel Prize-winning physicist;

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

Biocentrism builds on that and goes on to suggest that consciousness creates the universe or reality, that time and space are mere illusions, manifestations in our minds, and that reality is determined by the observer.

Biocentrism and Relativity predict the same phenomena, but biocentrism, according to its fans, is superior because it does not need to imagine an extra dimension or new mathematics to be formulated.

The theory claims that life is immortal and that it’s at the center of existence, reality, and the cosmos. By adding life and consciousness to the equation, biocentrism is believed by its adepts to be the theory of everything.

Life & Death According to Robert Lanza

Robert Lanza is a highly qualified scientist and a very serious person. He specializes in stem cells, cloning, and regenerative medicine research. Lanza has a distinguished career with articles devoted to him in prestigious publications.

In 2014, he made the Time Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people in the world, and in 2015, Prospect Magazine selected him as one of the “World’s Thinkers 2015”.

In 2009, Lanza published his book “BIOCENTRISM: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe” in which he places biology above other sciences and calls for a switch from physics to biology to understand “everything”.

Dr. Lanza says that he thinks he is succeeding in the unification that Einstein would have failed to achieve, claiming that Einstein only considered reality from the physical side, without giving much thought to biology.

Lanza claims that quantum physics has proved the existence of life after death, that energy is immortal, and so is life.

For Lanza, we believe in death because we have been taught that we are dying, however, biocentrism says the universe exists only because the individual is aware of it.

Life and biology create this reality, and the universe itself does not create life. The concepts of time and space, according to Lanza, are simply tools of our imagination.

Lanza, along with astronomer Bob Berman, also revisited his controversial theory in their book, Beyond Biocentrism.

OK, Dr. Lanza may sound more like Nietzsche than Einstein, but what’s your take on this?

Read More: Quantum Archeology and 3D-Bioprinting Could Make us Immortal

Found this article interesting?

Let Zayan Guedim know how much you appreciate this article by clicking the heart icon and by sharing this article on social media.


Profile Image

Zayan Guedim

Trilingual poet, investigative journalist, and novelist. Zed loves tackling the big existential questions and all-things quantum.

Comments (35)
Most Recent most recent
You
  1. KhanneaSuntzu August 30 at 12:07 pm GMT

    This talk is a little offensive to me. Lying, if you ask me.

    • Profile Image
      Krista Grace Morris September 01 at 10:37 pm GMT

      Thanks for taking the time to read our blog. As the Chief Editor of Edgy Labs, I want to make sure that we cover topics that are interesting, informative and engaging to our readers. What specifically did you find offensive about this post? Thanks for letting us know and for helping us improve our site. Thank you again for visiting!

  2. Julius513 August 30 at 9:26 pm GMT

    He has some good points…..but they are interpretations not in any way proofs…. consciousness could be a higher reality of sorts but that in no way means reality is an illusion , quit the contrary , observation and experimentation prove it is not an illusion. Now it is perfectly reasonable to say consciousness is a higher reality yet….but quantum mechanics does not prove that. Quantum mechanics ties consciousness to free will …and says if you don’t believe in free will then you don’t need to worry about quantum mechanics. …people trade the word observation for MEASUREMENT . whether or not you observe it has nothing to do with it …it’s a measurement that determines the wave particle duality determination. If you don’t have free will then someone could make the case the universe conspired to make the decision for you and there is no duality problem. If you believe in free will then quantum mechanics works just fine but it uses measurement not observation to settle the issue of what is being measured.

    • Profile Image
      Krista Grace Morris September 01 at 10:41 pm GMT

      Incredible insight, thanks for starting this discussion. We’ll definitely be doing a follow-up piece based on the very valid distinctions you’ve made. Thanks again for reading.

      • Profile Image
        Mark DeGarmo March 12 at 1:36 am GMT

        If you want proof, simply interview children who’ve had a near death experience. It’s uncanny how consistent and uniform their depictions of the afterlife are.

    • bruss September 28 at 7:51 am GMT

      What about Wheeler’s Delayed Choice? (See ANU for a recent demonstration.) These experiments suggest that wave function collapse does not occur if the stored measurement of the measuring device is irrevocably destroyed before being looked at. It’s super weird, super sound (and clever) methodology, and at that moment, completely without explanation.

  3. Faresalis Bookcarrier September 05 at 2:44 am GMT

    My apologies to be blunt; there is no such thing as ^freewill^. That based-on-superficial-observation concept is even an issue to begin with, because it works –& therefore is needed–to “market” the doctrine of sin & consequently the “sales” of heavenly lands (for the political gain of mass control by the communism-teaching-&-preaching class of priests & imams).

    Logico-scientific proofs debunking the existence of ^freewill^ can be studied in the books The Myth of Choice by Kent Greenfield, & Free Will by Sam Harris. Even religions themselves “secretly” admit that “freewill” is non-sense –if you know where to look for the almost-never-quoted verses:

    While the God of Islamism admits (despite contradicting other verses Muslim writers often cherry-pick in their Taqiyya-based presentations) the non-existence of ^freewill^ (where everything has been predestined for It to be infinitely-almighty above & for everything there was, is & will be), the God of Judeo-Christianism cowardly boggles in semantics & word games to avoid being linked to evil. Look at how It tries to present an “alternative fact” in Romans8:28. In Islamism, Allah ^told^ the Prophet that Adam had been predestined to eat that fruit 40 years before he was even created (Sahih Muslim Book 33#6409; see also Book 33#6241 pertaining to every man’s share of adultery) & the death of an underage boy killed as a casualty of war shouldn’t be mourned because “like his parents, he would’ve grown up to be another infidel anyway” (Muslim 33#6434 linked to Quran18:73, & a similar Biblical story of God’s hatred to Esau before he was even born, in Malachi1:3 & Romans9:13).

    To see above & beyond the duality & conditionalism that is God and Satan (Iblis), there’s a book of consistent logic in explaining ^freewill^. Unlike the many dozens of religious scriptures & New Age readings attempting to smokescreen the ultimately-existential Q of freewill & predestination –or even avoiding the very mention of it altogether– the presentation simply claim there is no ^freewill^ because “in the higher dimensions, the future has already happened”. This is NOT a science book & can be safely recommended as a pastime fiction reading (though we’d never know what science can possibly attain & consequently prove in the distant future:-). Find it in Our Universal Journey by George Kavassilas. Happy finding your own truth!

    • Alexander De Ridder September 05 at 3:31 am GMT

      Retro causality is an easy explanation for free will in light of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, even in light of known final state.

      • Faresalis Bookcarrier September 05 at 5:10 am GMT

        Indeed, “freewill” is scientifically a non-issue (why even mentioning it if one did not believe that it is 1.Given to them by Yahweh/Elohim or Allah 2. With the purpose of testing their one-time-only worth of receiving a piece of land in heaven?) whereas science has “retro-causality” (a completely different concept, being totally incompatible with “who’s giving it?” & “what’s the purpose of having it?”) in explaining certain particulars found evolutionary biology and quantum mechanics.

        Yet outside of science, “freewill” is still a hot, popular tool in religious teachings & preachings. Were we already predestined by God to do –or not to do– what we “believe” we had chosen to do –or not do? The verses quoted above show that religions’ answer for this will flip-flop as political convenience demands, LOL. In fact all religions & spiritualities claiming that God exists as 1 personal entity are struggling to smokescreen (the implications from) this question due to its logical potential of destroying adherents’ faith –except for Buddhism which was highly praised by Einstein himself, as quoted in the book Albert Einstein the Human Side. Or is the one doing the predestinating is our (own) upper-dimensional higher selves (as Kavassilas consistently claim in his presentation)?

    • Stephen June 10 at 5:22 am GMT

      Yeah. And all of that relies on someone still believing in silly ancient superstitions. So try again.

      • Faresalis Bookcarrier July 20 at 7:24 pm GMT

        What appears as magic today might eventually be explained as simply “manipulation of higher-dimensional physics”, just like what natural phenomena appeared to ancient peoples.

        And on another note, not believing in dragons does not necessarily have to prevent us from enjoying stories and games involving their existence:-)

        So no, I’m not trying to convince anyone to accept what cannot be explained with the current bio-physical science (of our 3rd-dimensional realm) as natural facts of this realm. Just recommending the book as a pastime reading of a possible scenario (explaining Allah alias Yahweh alias Brahma from a different viewpoint whereas whether or not It actually exists could be an entirely different question from whether or not It is the one-and-only eternally-unchanging creator of all 🙂

      • Profile Image
        Dennis Petersson Häll March 26 at 6:27 pm GMT

        Athiesm is allready debunked

    • Mehmet Bekir Birden July 20 at 2:14 pm GMT

      I love the informed ignorants like you. You pick the words you like from many sources which themselves are under big questions and try to build your own facts depending on them, considering writing `Sahih Muslim Book 33#6409` will persuade others to your belief.

      • Faresalis Bookcarrier July 20 at 4:12 pm GMT

        Reply 1 to Mehmet Bekir Birden

        “Informed ignorants”? Nice one:-).

        While I appreciate the compliment but I apologize in pointing that someone who is (properly) “informed” cannot be alleged as “ignorant”. If their sources (of knowledge) contradict yours then you debate them to find out whose are corrupt and/ or incomplete and/ or dishonest for only-selectively representing the truth, or attempting taqqiyyah by outright lying. Thus, an ignorant can only be “un-informed” or “mis-informed”. Now let us debate to see which of us failing to understand what your religion (my previous religion) actually teaches and what its alleged-book actually says:-)

        Now whatever you want to believe about anything, the majority of Muslims do accept the “truth” of the hadith collection compiled by Bukhari and Muslim. Yes I’m aware that by accepting the Al-Hadith as a “complementer & explainer” of the Quran, the majority of Muslims are actually denying the verses in which the Quran claims itself absolute, complete, perfect & doubtless. Not to mention that nowhere in the Quran had Allah made a promise to safeguard the supposed-purity of anything outside of the Quran itself (not surprising considering that Allah had intentionally allowed the earlier revelations to be corrupted by Jews & Christians:-).

        That’s why some adherents of Islam with some semblance of logical honesty decided to be “Quran Only Muslims”; ditching the entire hadith collection. But as you might have already known, they are a persecuted and prosecuted minority, and for your own political correctness you can’t just tell any fellow Muslim that you reject the entire Sunnah of the Prophet (and anything else non-Quranic).

        You want to debate the Sunnis and Shias that they are in fact denying and insulting the Quran by accepting hadiths as “complementer and explainer for the Quran”? Be my guest. But if you are NOT a Quran-only Muslim, what’s your basis in rejecting the Sahih verse(s) being discussed? Because it does not suit what you ^want^ to believe? If the fault lies with me for failing to understand it correctly, then you are most welcome to present your case. Please kindly show me (and the rest of us) what’s wrong in understanding it as it is, and why ^your^ comprehension of it is the true Allah-inspired reading for the text?

        Additionally, another “motivation” for a number of Muslims to toss out the entire hadith collection was/ is because they don’t want to believe how the hadiths depict the Prophet. It is rather ironic that by rejecting the Sunnah they are (somehow) saving the reputation of the Prophet himself (since –among others– only the hadiths testify that the Prophet had sexual relations with a 9-year-old girl while calling it ^marriage^ –yet Muslims are supposed to care about what “Insaan Kameel” allegedly said about the ^morality of homosexuality^?). Also, there will be a far greater unity without the “Sunni vs Shia division” –contributed existentially by the hadiths.

        Now to assume that you are indeed a Quran-only Muslim, it is only fair to acknowledge that I cannot use the Sunnah to show you what Islam actually teaches about ^freewill^ and predestination. Only the Quran alone is your standard of truth and I accept that challenge…..

        The following is a very thorough presentation comparing at least 4 contradicting groups of verses in the Quran, denying each other in explaining the matter of freewill and predestination. Kindly note how the Christian author of the presentation also admits that (anyone who’s honestly using their logic cannot deny that) the Bible also faces the same issue, albeit in different wording; Search for the article “The Problem of Divine Sovereignty, Predestination, Salvation and Human Free Will” by Sam Shamoun in the answering (dash) islam website (the dot org, which is a banned in my country Indonesia, not the dot com).

        • Mehmet Bekir Birden July 20 at 4:33 pm GMT

          A short answer, the detailed will come. First, I especially did not mention Islam and did not say I am a muslim, second, you do a black & white distinction between Quran and Sunnah. But no, there is a middle way too. But the long answer will come. 🙂

    • Mehmet Bekir Birden July 20 at 2:30 pm GMT

      While the God of Islamism admits (despite contradicting other verses Muslim writers often cherry-pick in their Taqiyya-based presentations) the non-existence of ^freewill^ (where everything has been predestined for It to be infinitely-almighty above & for everything there was, is & will be). Even a basic principle like this you got completely wrong. In Abrahamic religions Creator’s will is over every thing, but not neglects the will of created ones – not only humans but also animals -. And sorry to disappoint you, but nothing is predestined for people. Sure, the end time and universe have their own agenda, but people have their own free will within this setup. What the huge mistake is, Creator knows everything and that is interpreted as Creator decides what will happen. Sure, that is in Creator’s capabilities, but that does not mean Creator gives people a pseudo-freewill. And what causes this mistake is the concept of “time”. Like the material “universe”, “time” is also a setup for people. It does not cover the Creator but the Creator covers it. That is why it is possible know things before they happen. These are not my words, but the Abrahamic religions’ words. But if you consider to play with ‘Sahih Muslim Book” and interpret them as facts or say facts for neglecting the religions and belief altogether, that is your own freewill. Don’t blame the Creator later on. 🙂

      • Faresalis Bookcarrier July 20 at 5:39 pm GMT

        Reply 2 to Mehmet Bekir Birden,

        Do you want to review the issue of freewill and predestination philosophically, or Quranically?

        Philosophically speaking:
        1. You cannot logically claim Allah creates everything EXCEPT evil, darkness, and other aspects of reality which YOU find to be unpleasant and inconvenient. Sorry, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe that the Almighty controls all –or you don’t believe in the deity at all.

        2. Without evil/ darkness how can you know what good/ light is?
        3. The bad characters and the good characters in any scenario, don’t they all work for the same director?
        4. Without the corruption of the Gospel of Jesus (which is a bad/ evil thing to have taken place), would there be a reason for Islam to be sent the world as “humanity’s salvation” and “grace to the whole universe”? Even something so “true” needs something so “false/ wrong” to exist:-). But on a side note, if Allah’s “kun fayakuun” decision had replaced what could have only came from the sperm of a human male, then what’s logically wrong in figuratively calling Isa as the Son of Allah?
        5. What exactly is the problem in acknowledging that Allah does not give us freewill? Because it doesn’t suit ^your^ concept of Allah’s love justice? But who said that Allah had to be “just” and “loving” according you how ^you^ define that concept? This is what you would have been taught and indoctrinated with, should you been born and raised by parents who adhere to the Mu’tazilah sect of Islam.

        And Quranically speaking
        Find and read the article “The Problem of Divine Sovereignty, Predestination, Salvation and Human Free Will” by Sam Shamoun in the answering (dash) islam website. There are dozens of Quranic verses being reviewed there. My apologies to inform that if the only verse in the Quran which you know to be talking about ^freewill^ is that “Allah will not change the situation of someone unless they started changing it themselves” verse, then you have been a victim of taqqiyyah because that verse is NOT and NEVER the only verse in the Quran which discusses the matter. Should we discuss why the website displaying this presentation is banned in Islamic countries?

        Sorry, the philosophical “time” and “universe” does NOT mix with Scrapture-based religious teachings. To give a solid example, the story of Noah’s Ark proves that Abrahamic rellgions cannot possibly be coming from all-knowing, all-creating God. Open the article The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark in the National Center for Science and Education (NCSE) website to study the evidences for this claim. Anyone who is honest in using their their logic cannot possibly accept that such story (having even been proven to be plagiarized by Islam from Christianity from Judaism from the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh) came from God.

        You are most welcome to “philosophize” the facts in that presentation in any way you like, but why would a deity who had failed to explain the natural (bio-physical) facts of our reality (which Itself had supposedly created) be trusted in Its claims on supernatural things like heaven and hell? Is your basis in rejecting reincarnation solely because “Abrahamic religions does not acknowledge it”? Allah claimed to have created everything in pairs but search for “gay animals” and ask yourself how come the deity did not know about asexual, bisexual, intersexual, trans-sexual, homosexual and parthenogenesis animals? And sweet destiny, we have not even talked about evolution. And sorry also that the earth is not flat, nor is it being at the center of the universe.

        Whether or not God actually exists as a personal entity (a notion rejected by Socrates, Spinoza, Einstein, Buddha, Hawking and deGrasse Tyson), it is a completely different matter to question whether Judeo-Islamo-Christianism correctly describes and explains the deity. Only Buddhism is consistent in claiming that God is beyond all explanations, while Abrahamic religions claim that God “works in mysterious ways” only when encountering difficult questions, yet keep on claiming that God is this and not that, God wants this and dislikes that, God can only be worshiped this way and not that, God gives eternity in heaven in only this way and not that, etc etc.

        Also, kindly note that you cannot defend the “truth of Abrahamic religions” as a whole. The 3 religions are (only) historically related, but by content they are demonizing each other. Maybe details don’t interest you, but some of us are really interested in studying a religion for what it actually is (what its scrapture actually says –along with any contradicting verses from the same book) instead of what its cherry-picking “ignorant” adherents want to believe.

    • Mehmet Bekir Birden July 20 at 2:39 pm GMT

      One last thing, which is also a huge mistake. Religion does not target atheists, but targets misbelievers. I you do not believe, fine, you are free to go, but if you seek for something, then this is where religion comes to play. So if you are not a believer or seeker, do not expect religion will change you.

      • Faresalis Bookcarrier July 20 at 7:03 pm GMT

        Christians are commanded to put to death anyone who does not believe in their lord.

        Muslims are commanded to collect submission tax from non-Muslims in vicinity where these kafirs are minority. Apostasy is also punishable by death in Islam.

        Which religion are you exactly talking about?

        There is a huge difference between a believer and a seeker. One of them is willing to employ atheistic viewpoint in assessing all religions before choosing one to believe in (and willing to accept that there might be none which is worth-adhering)

        And why would a non-believer want or need religion to change them? Into what? Why would you need to believe in a deity to be a good and humane person?

        • Mehmet Bekir Birden July 31 at 2:52 pm GMT

          OK, sorry for very late return. I had to re-read everything quickly. We have an audit in the company so I am a dead man. 🙂 Anyway, let’s begin. First of all, like I said I do not ignore prophet or hadiths, and yes, although I did not want to mention, I am a Muslim. We were discussing the freewill and how Abrahamic religions explain it, but issue returned to pure theology and the authenticity of religions. In a short way, not Buhari, nor any other hadith collector claimed the hadiths they collected are %100 accurate, beside they added many objections or suspicions about them. So, a hadith MAY BE words of the prophet if and only if it is validated by Quran. Even then, you may not be %100 certain. Second, taxation of non-muslims has nothing to do with religions not targeting atheists, it is simply management of society; muslims were are also giving tax under the name of zakat. And no; non of the Abrahamic religions order punishment to people without a crime against society, let alone just by being an Atheist. And as a person here, reading all these articles, since when “majority” is a measure for truth? Even Creator says majority may be mistaken, do not follow them just because of this. I think this is where we should stop discussing general theology, because it is not relevant to article. I said my words about the “freewill” definition of religions and if you have anything to add, you are more than welcome. 🙂

        • Mehmet Bekir Birden July 31 at 2:58 pm GMT

          And another note; Reply 2 is not visible to me. “The following is a very thorough presentation comparing at least 4 contradicting groups of verses in the Quran, denying each other in explaining the matter of freewill and predestination.” What you meant here I did not get. May be it was in Reply 2, but like I said, I did not see it.

        • Thomas Nickelsen August 21 at 4:48 am GMT

          This is Takiya in practice. A Muslim lie. They just throw it out there and know that someone somewhere will believe it.

    • Thomas Nickelsen August 21 at 4:46 am GMT

      Takiya is one more reason to believe that Islam is not a belief in God at all but a belief in a fallen angel called Satan.

  4. Joe Cogan October 29 at 9:57 pm GMT

    That’s some mighty powerful woo there!

  5. Uncle Fred November 15 at 12:31 am GMT

    What we call “physics” is really microbiology -& MACRO TOO- all along already. MOTION is ENERGY & energy is “LIFE” -yes biologically actually…..!

  6. Krystal Myth December 05 at 2:31 pm GMT

    More narcissistic tree falls in forest does it make a sound nonsense. Yes, no shit. Whether or not someone is there to hear it. It made a sound. The idea that something exists only when it’s perceived can only make sense to the most vain narcissistic individual in the world. You sincerely have to be truly self centered to think the world vanishes when you close the door on it.

  7. RUsure March 25 at 8:30 pm GMT

    There is no LIFE after death. Life is an organism ie. The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.
    However, consciousness after life is a possibility. As we know, the conservation energy validates the fact that our energy will not be destroyed. Yet, if we are aware in death, what is the point? Can we convey this awareness to our living humans? Is it a self awareness? Quantum mechanics/physics does answer the fundamental basis of everything.
    Some may be thinking that I believe in a God, not at all. The creator and the destroyer is nature itself. We are in a state of entropy the day we began our existence. This in itself is controversial; was there truly a beginning and will there be an end.
    All we know, is now. Similar to the argument that the universe is expanding. Yes Hubble saw things moving away from us however, did he see things moving towards us on the opposite of the earth???
    There is no answer, nor should there be.

    • Jeff Jaques May 04 at 3:51 pm GMT

      Where is the logical thought in this expression. Just because you say there isn’t or Dr Lanza says there is, does not make either statement true.

      • R. Arandas July 19 at 2:51 am GMT

        Yes, to say with certainty there is no greater reality beyond the corporeal is an expression of ego, nothing more.

  8. Will B May 25 at 4:41 pm GMT

    “The first principle of Biocentrism is that reality involves your consciousness; [air] could not be the air without your consciousness.”
    This is bogus. If there were no people or animals alive on the planet, the air would still be the air. No one would be around to perceive it, but IT would still be air.
    Your perception of reality does NOT change reality. When you see and optical illusion, you think you see “this” but it is really “that,” which is the point of the illusion. Your perceptions — at best — are only partial. Even if what you think you see really is what is there, you only see partially. The same goes for all our senses.

    Assuming this speaker is giving an accurate representation of this concept, the entire concept is useless. This reminds me of the foolish, erroneous believes before Galileo, who believed the Earth was the center of the solar system.
    YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. REALITY DOES NOT DEPEND ON YOUR PERCEPTION OR YOUR EXISTANCE.

  9. R. Arandas July 19 at 2:40 am GMT

    Why are so many Americans becoming agnostic and atheist? You don’t like the Church, radical Islam, or organized religion, fine. But you don’t have to throw everything out with them.

  10. troydavis July 21 at 3:29 pm GMT

    Complete and baseless speculation and nonsense, with not a shred of evidence, typical of the arrogance of Homo “Sapiens Sapiens”, put in inverted quotes on purpose to show irony !

    • R. Arandas August 18 at 9:07 am GMT

      Not necessarily, I mean, the multiverse theory in quantum mechanics might well be correct, so is there something truly so far-fetched about other worlds existing beyond our physical senses?

  11. deenie1219 November 26 at 4:04 am GMT

    Physics and mathematics are essential for biocentrism to make any sense. A good video to see is
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLbSlC0Pucw

  12. Profile Image
    Jack Urso August 03 at 12:15 pm GMT

    Iworkedataradiostationin1990swhereBermmanregularlyappeared,HewasdeniyingtheasteroidhitinMexico65millionyearsagoaslateas1995,.Hehaslittlecreditabilitywithme.

7
share Scroll to top

Link Copied Successfully

Sign in

Sign in to access your personalized homepage, follow authors and topics you love, and clap for stories that matter to you.

Sign in with Google Sign in with Facebook

By using our site you agree to our privacy policy.