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?
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.
128 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
shaji
2013-05-07 @ 9:42 AM
Scientists proved from near-death experience that the soul or mind can exist without the human body. So…?
Julia
2013-05-07 @ 11:09 AM
So? That means that our personalities, our identities, are independent of matter. In fact, we function better without bodies. Clearly survival of consciousness after the body’s demise is not just tenable but seems inevitable.
Andrea
2013-05-16 @ 3:48 AM
Dr. Assante,
I have recently been thinking about and fearing death. I have three small children, and my biggest fear is not being with them. I had an aunt who died when she was my age, and she left behind two small children. They are so beautiful now (both in their twenties), and they radiate with her spirit. I always feel sad that she couldn’t be there to help them grow up. I’ve been reading numerous studies that suggest that NDE can be explained physiologically. I became overwhelmed by the idea that we were merely matter. I’m not a religious person, but I’ve always believed in some sort of transcendent spirit. The scientific position on the afterlife depressed me and even made me physically ill. Then I bought your book. It has helped me in so many ways. I feel very empowered now and focused on my life’s work. I am also more focused on spending quality time with my children. I have read a lot of material on the subject, but I loved the scholarly style of your writing. Your book was both comforting and intellectually engaging! Thanks so much!
Julia
2013-05-16 @ 8:58 AM
Thanks so much Andrea for the compliments. I am glad indeed that my book has helped you. Let me add that your aunt is no doubt quite aware of her children and helped them grow up. It is quite natural to go through episodes of fearing death. For you, because you are the same age as your aunt when she died, you are bound to have such an episode and are probably picking up the fear that she had when her life came to an end. Of course, you are choosing another route by reading a book that helps you work through those fears! Now that’s another so-called coincidence, no?
PHILIP SMITH
2013-06-06 @ 7:41 PM
Having been pronounce dead twice, and having a NDE I find your site very interesting. But even through science one has to admit that there is a life after death. If we were created from a single organism/cell than it is logical that intelligence has to exist for the evolution process to have happened. It is also logical that if this intelligence is “so intelligent” that we developed arms to reach, legs, to walk, a circulatory system, a brain to think, a heart in which to run the bodies lifeline, etc. than it is logical that this magnificent intelligence would not create a body/life that would perish with time. This intelligence needs an escape from the body, and it has one. Some know it through religion, some through science, but the answer is the same…..life goes on after our bodies die.
Alephsus V
2013-08-03 @ 4:50 AM
Very interesting reading. However, it would also be interesting to think about the repercussions that such a scientific discovery would initiate… For religion, it would bring down the “wonderful business” that religions use of the fear for hell — or the reward of heaven, since most religions base their power on an alleged truth about the afterlife. If there are two “discoveries” that would change humanity forever for good or for worse they would be: Life after death (what REALLY happens) and extraterrestrial visits. Neither has serious scientific backup…yet. The sources of privately funded research on the “other” side of the coin would do their best NOT to disclose any of the truths found, alas, because fear is a great ally of the powers that be, and knowing what really happens after we die would certainly dissipate lots of fears. I, for one, want the truth. But I can assure you that MANY people will deny, even violently, what doesn’t jibe with their beliefs. Heck, many people TODAY deny evolution and still think that the Earth is only a few thousands years old!
Greetings from Mexico, excuse my English, and thank you for the text.
Mitch
2013-08-27 @ 11:40 AM
Actually, NDE’s are utterly and completely inconclusive from a scientific aspect of studying the afterlife. Science demands that the experiment produce verifiable data. Bright lights, tunnels, angels, and the like are not helpful in anyway in the scientific search for verification of the afterlife. I see the NDE as having a primary goal of proving that MIND and BODY are separate. In order to do this effectively, in a controlled, scientific, laboratory environment, we need to do a controlled test that looks for data that can be verified as being authentic data that the subject being tested could not otherwise have known. In this proposed testing, we will purposefully “flatline” these test subjects, with the goal of them telling us what is hidden in a special locked safe. An additional point of testing would be if the individual can come back with unknown information about deceased individuals. However, such testing is unlikely to happen any time soon. So, as you can see, NDE’s are NOT easily testing in what would be a satisfactory scientific manor. In conclusion, it would be far better and easier to test the claims of “Spiritual Mediums.” I myself have tested spiritual mediums, giving Zero information to the mediums to put them to the test. All of them failed my scientific tests miserably, many of these mediums went as far as asking me for information. One of them was a well known medium with hundreds of positive comments. If you would like more information, please contact me. I am serious about scientific testing of the afterlife. Complete, utter, SECURE testing. It is my personal opinion that all supposed Spiritual Mediums will utterly fail my type of testing. (Meaning, they will be unable to provide any of the accurate data they claim to be able to provide.) You may call me “closed minded” if you wish. But I HAVE tested the afterlife, with disappointing results. Since it is impossible to tell when the NDE’s are occurring …(It could happen after the cardiac arrest and the person is in a sleep-like state.) NDE’s can be wiped completely from the board unless the data is amazing, such as the NDE stating they saw a tennis shoe on the roof when they were OBE. This type of NDE is extremely lacking….you know… the ones containing verifiable data….
My 2 cents… from a skeptic that has done his own testing… and yes… I WANT the afterlife to be a FACT. But the bottom line is…. it’s not a FACT.
Julia
2013-08-27 @ 2:19 PM
If you had read my the section in my book on proof of the afterlife, you would know that I largely agree with you. I write extensively about these problems and what constitutes proof versus evidence. I agree that NDEs do not prove an afterlife, and frankly, I don’t think that’s what NDErs are experiencing anyway. The afterlife is a gross misnomer to boot. The strict dualism we invest in of life and death do not really reflect what happens. Consciousness is much more flexible than that. What NDEs have provided is demonstration, demonstration that the mind operates without a body and operates better unencumbered by matter. Is is also good to remember that a lot of what we take as scientific fact is merely a hypothesis that best explains the perceived conditions. And perhaps you would be shocked to know how fact can be fashioned from a 0.8% difference in chance.
Your attitude toward mediums and your expectation of failure are key factors why your test results are so poor. You of course realize that all testing is subjective, no matter what field of science it takes place in. Furthermore, all clinical trials are set up to optimize conditions. For experiments that involve human skills such as telepathy, remote viewing and precognition (really all the same thing) those conditions are strong intention and genuine constructive emotion–on everyone’s part, in addition to Faraday cages and so forth. No one expects the Hadron Collider to work in a nursery school! Strict conditions have to be set, perfected over years, with enormous amounts of funding. If we had that, survival after death would be fact.