Can Science Prove Life After Death?

The short answer to the question can science prove life after death is—YES. The problem is not about designing objective and replicable clinical tests or even inventing machines sensitive enough to register organized consciousness outside of matter. All that would be easy in comparison to something like the Hadron Collider built to discover how matter forms at a subatomic level. The collider is a subterranean machine 17 miles (27 km) in length running under the Swiss-French border. Its development is a joint effort of European nations (CERN) and its data are sent to some 160 universities throughout the world for analysis. Nor is the problem about cost. The price tag for the Hadron Collider is already well into billions of euros. Compare this high-level, international government and university sponsored coordination and mind-boggling expense for the Hadron Collider to the small-scale, uncoordinated investigation of life after death, an enterprise which is nearly always conducted privately, and without outside funding. As science routinely invents devices that can “see” the invisible, whether in astrophysics or nuclear physics, why can’t it develop the technology it takes to prove life after death?

EXLDF00Z.jpg (400×300)

The problem is attitude. A Gallup poll on immortality found that only 16% of leading scientists believed in life after death as opposed to anywhere from 67% to 82% of the general population, according to several polls combined. And only 4% of these scientists thought it might be possible for science to prove it. Apparently they have no trouble believing in Multiverses in which a nearly infinite number of parallel universes are imperceptible or String Theory with its 11 dimensions of reality, some of them also imperceptible, and the Hidden Worlds Theory, which again hypothesizes imperceptible universes. But an afterlife? That’s just too crazy. Although this poll dates back to 1982 and so far newer ones have not been taken, the scorn and ridicule targeted at scientists who might be brave enough to propose testing for an afterlife and the subsequent loss or demotion of their professional positions are costs too high to risk. Even so, funding to test a survival hypothesis would hardly be granted.

So far evidence for survival is coming from the softer sciences, psychiatry, psychology as well as medicine and biology, with specific, potentially revolutionary hints in neurobiology, quantum biology and genetics. Even in the softer sciences, however, a person chances considerable derision if not loss of professional reputation for pursuing research in this area. Ironically, the hard sciences are doing the most to dismantle the assumption that the material universe is the only real universe—a crucial point for any argument for a non-material dimension of the dead. Astrophysics claims that 95.4% of the entire universe is not made up of the kind of matter and energy we call “real.” Less than a third of the 95.4% is composed instead of a mysterious substance called dark matter and more than 2/3rds of it is equally strange dark energy. The universe we are accustomed to thinking of as real amounts to a mere 4.6% and is composed of the kind of matter and energy we know. But quantum mechanics describes the matter that makes up our world, our bodies, and the computer in front of you as barely physical at all. In fact, the ratio of the amount of matter in an atom to the total size of an atom is roughly that of a pea to a football field. The rest is energy in the form of forces and oscillations. If you took all the space out of the atoms making up the human body, the amount of solid matter left would be the size of a microscopic dot. Theoretically then, what separates us from discarnates is that dot.

Most of us believe that the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry, conduct the most objective and most accurate tests in comparison to the softer sciences. But any particle physicist knows that there is no such thing as objectivity. We also assume that the hard sciences’ test results are more precisely measured and more consistent than those of other sciences.  If you really look closely at how scientific proof is achieved, you may be astonished to find that solid proof is not so solid. Dean Radin, senior scientist for The Institute of Noetic Science, gives many examples in his book, The Conscious Universe. One study he looks at was conducted by Larry Hedge of the University of Chicago. Hedge’s analysis compared the empirical replication rate for particle physics—the hardest of the hard sciences—with the empirical success in replication for social sciences. Both particle physics and social sciences showed a statistical inconsistency of 45%, that is, when all studies were taken into account. For reasons of design flaws or flukes, particle physicists discarded tests whose results were incompatible with expected ones. Since we now know that soft-science experiments can be as successfully replicated as those in hard sciences, we can assume that there is a potential design for replicable clinical tests on the continuation of organized consciousness outside of matter. I also suspect that the electrical energy of the dead—an energy my own body registers so strongly—could be precisely measured, which would yield quantifiable results. The technology sensitive enough to do so already exists.

Much of what the hard sciences propose as real is more often extrapolation from a set of effects rather than fact. If this and that are observed to happen, why they happen is deduced. From these deductions, a workable hypothesis is formed and then tested. We don’t really know, for instance, if there was ever a Big Bang. There has been no direct observation of this proposed cosmic event. That’s why the Hadron Collider was built, to attempt reproduction of how matter was born. The assumptions of a Big Bang or even a black hole are derived from a set of discernible conditions that can best be explained—in the current state of our knowledge—by a bang or a hole.

The evidence for survival already available satisfies the scientific criteria required for testing. First, there is a phenomenon in which it can be definitely stated that something real has happened because of its effects. That phenomenon could be anything from a recorded voice with no known source, a picture of a deceased individual picked up on film or a visitation from the deceased witnessed by more than one person simultaneously. Second, a very finite number of hypothetical causes from these effects can be extrapolated. And third, the hypothesis that best and most elegantly explains all the observable effects of a given phenomenon is the existence of organized consciousness outside the realm of matter.  The problem of replicating these effects under clinical conditions remains however. If the dead could be induced to participate, and they can be, we could test for other more quantifiable effects, especially in the electromagnetic range. Another obvious route would be the development of sensitive communication technology. The private sector that researches Instrumental Transcommunication, as it is called, has already made remarkable progress, sometimes with startling success. If only 1% of the money and expertise that went into the Hadron Collider were available (even better, 1% of the ten trillion spent on developing the atomic bomb), within a matter of a few years science could prove life after death.

  • blogger Blog this!
  • delicious Bookmark on Delicious
  • digg Digg this post
  • facebook Share on Facebook
  • gplus
  • myspace Share via MySpace
  • stumble Share with Stumblers
  • twitter Tweet about it
  • print Print for later
  • bookmark Bookmark in Browser

88 Comments

  1. G Harvey

    I found this site while searching for some kind of evidence of life after death. Suddenly out of nowhere I have developed a crippling fear of death. I can’t get the thought out of my head, day or night. I can’t even take enjoyment in things because this fear is paralyzing me. All I’ve found is faulty/questionable experiments and doubletalk… nothing logical…

    Reply

    • Julia

      Graig, I think we all go through this at some time or another, perhaps not as intensely as you are now. My guess is (I’m not in trance!), that something has triggered a past life in which you experienced a traumatic death. Do you have any birthmarks?

      If I were you, I would go immediately to a regression therapist or a hypnotherapist and get to the root of this fear as quickly as possible. Once you have, the fear will leave you as quickly as it came.

      Let me know!

      Reply

      • G Harvey

        I have always been afraid off and on. When I was a kid I was very afraid, but eventually I stopped thinking about it so much. What triggered this fear is something I read, a very short, simple, and succinct comment that somehow drove how to me the fact that this in the end for us. It was like reading it snapping something in my mind and ever since I’ve been a useless, quivering ball of fear, day and night.

        I don’t have any birthmarks I don’t think. I’m also not convinced of/wholly trusting of the idea of hypnosis and regression. I don’t know if it’s believable. The least bit of skepticism is enough to dismiss most of those kinds of things. I wish it weren’t so.

        Reply

        • Julia

          Just right, and supports the past-life hypothesis. Children do remember their past lives, if only the way you did, through the fear. And then you forget them. But later the trigger appears and this irrational fear springs up again. You really need to see a regression therapist or past-life therapist. Why worry about whether something is real or not. Your only concern is that it works. Is your fear real?

          Reply

          • G Harvey

            Yes my fear is deep and very real. I understand your logic. Perhaps I will look for someone, though I am out of work(I was fired two days before Christmas). I am strongly considering visiting some Buddhist centers in my area as well. From what I have read they seem compassionate and undogmatic. What do you think? I don’t know what else to do to shake this constant terror. I am an analytical thinker and it makes it hard for me to accept things I don’t have proof of, but like you said, my fear is paralyzing me enough to seek any answer… this gives me panic attacks off and on throughout the week… thank you so much for continuing to respond and not writing me off as a naysayer or a combatant… I want to believe in something but it’s very hard….

            Reply

            • Julia

              The best combination is to be an analytic thinker as well as an intuitive thinker. Analytic thinking alone will lead to a great many psychological problems and discomforts. Buddhist centers may be helpful as support, but are more band-aids in comparison to doing the real work. Surely you can afford a few sessions with a hypnotherapist. The alternative is to allow the paralysis to continue and not be able to work! Money issues have a way of resolving when the psyche is unclogged. And no one should trade money for pain. Keep in touch!

              Reply

        • V greenland

          I suggest you read a book by Eben Alexander, who is a neurosurgeon, called”Proof of Heaven”. Very interesting!

          Reply

          • Julia

            I certainly know of the book. And I know Eben personally. We have read each other’s work. He named my book, which came out two weeks after his, a must-read on his website.

            Reply

        • Jonathan Walsh

          Hi Graig. Can I suggest you read “Beyond the Horizon” by Grace Rosher. It’s such a warm non-religious book about communication with one person who died in the 1960s. I give it to people who have lost someone dear to them. It is enormously uplifting – it’s available on Amazon.. I believe it will help you overcome your fears.. Good luck!

          Jonathan Walsh
          Author “Another Christianity”.

          Reply

      • Jonathan Walsh

        Hi Julia.. Great site. Many thanks.. I,too, am exploring life after death – and outside the typical church/ religion entity.. I firmly believe that science will “prove” life after death within 20 years.. But the interesting thought I have is that this will lead to the END of religion, which could have substantial consequences. After all, if you know all about the country you will be going to – and the fact that you will go there whether you go to church or not / or genuflect or not – there’s little point in doing much more than being the best person you can be on this earth – ie. loving one another. Do you have any thoughts on this idea?
        V best
        Jonathan Walsh
        Author
        “Another Christianity”

        Reply

        • Julia

          Yes, I do have some thoughts. When we are free of the fear of death, a fear, by the way, that religions cultivate, we will rediscover our natural, inborn morality. Without the fear of death, we would experience our immortal selves. Why would we need “religion” if we are already within the experience of divine immortality while still in the flesh?

          Reply

  2. Jonathan Walsh

    Absolutely agree! Have ordered your book – some great reviews. thanks for all your comments on such diverse topics. They are very thought provoking.

    Reply

    • Julia

      You’re most welcome!

      Reply

  3. nakayama

    PRESENT : TIME & SELF

    1. The present is a special (moving) point in long length (long segment) of time.
    2. “To me”, existence of I is a special (peculiar, unique, only one) existence.
    3. “To me”, the span of years in which I live (my lifetime) is a special span.
    4. “To me”, overlap of 1 and 3 is unthinkable, unimaginable (if life is only once).
    5. Answer to 4, after death, existence of I will revive. Thus, life will be eternal. Also it must be the same for all.

    P.S. Sorry, I cannot receive E – mail. I don’t have PC.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

*