|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biocentrism - How life creates the universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
Here is the authors point in a MSNBC article. Biocentrism: How life Creates the universe The article summarizes the authors point accurately. I read the book and found it engaging and makes a similar point as the book Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. I read this book as well, and although the books approach the subject from a somewhat different angles the basic point is that consciousness is fundamental to everything and that nothing exists without it. If these ideas represent reality then it will mean a major change in how we view science and biology. Edited by GDR, : typo Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3311 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I haven't read this book, but am I to understand that it is similar to Kant's proof of the existence of god by postulating that nothing could exist without a conscious mind perceiving it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
The idea is similar to Kant but he doesn't claim that this necessarily tells us anything about any god. I assume by his writing that he himself is agnostic.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 171 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
...it will mean a major change in how we view science and biology. Can you be more specific? How did you view science and biology before and after you read the book? How exactly did the book effect that change? It always bothers me when someone ends their piece with a statement like this when it should be the beginning of a discussion. On the other hand, this thread will make a major change in how we view this issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Wikipedia says it can be summarized thus:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Can you be more specific? How did you view science and biology before and after you read the book? How exactly did the book effect that change? It always bothers me when someone ends their piece with a statement like this when it should be the beginning of a discussion. Science assumes that life grew as a result of atoms combining in a manner that created life from a pre-existing universe. This theory assumes that the universe only exists because it is perceived by a pre-existing consciousness. If this theory is correct scientists are going to have to consider an entirely different set of parameters in looking for a GUT if nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
This is an excerpt from this link that expresses the idea far better than I can. Discover Mind&Brain/Cosmology
quote: Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
... excerpt from this link that expresses the idea far better ... This is the problem with philosophers. They extrapolate to extremes where the underlying phenomenon has no voice. This is a gross misinterpretation and misuse of Heisenberg/Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation. QM does not say that particles (or moons or suns or universes) do not exist until they are observed, but that the wide probabilities of a particle's states are its reality until specific values are observed (collapse of the wave function). Feynman's Sum-Over-Histories is an excellent tool here. For any particle every possible state must be considered even though the probability of that possibility is vanishingly small. The probability sum of those possibilities is the reality of the particle. For single particles this probability function will be spread giving rise to Heisenberg's uncertainty in position-v-momentum or energy-v-time. As particles aggregate, however, the sums peak in sharper relief and the uncertainty becomes less to the point that the aggregated object mimics the certainty of classical mechanics (the correspondence principle of Copenhagen). Whether there were eyes to see it or not, the moon, the sun, the universe (as an aggregate of particles) existed in a certain location at a certain time with a certain set of attributes. This it ain't there till ya see it is bogus and any philosophy based on this is bogus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I don't pretend to have the knowledge to debate this myself so I have to rely on what I read. Here is a porton of an interview given by Roger Penrose some time ago.
quote: Here is a web site devoted to the theory.
Biocentricity Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3663 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Here is a porton of an interview given by Roger Penrose some time ago. What Roger is talking about here is much more reasonable than the above comments regarding the double-slit and "spookiness". While I don't necessarily agree with Roger's more specific ideas about conciousness and quantum behaviour, there is almosrt certainly some intrinsic link relating back to his points here regarding the nature of time. There is an obvious biocentricity arising in the fact that the perceived world is not the real world. At the trivial end is the nature of colour. At the deep end, there is the nature of space, location and distance. All of these, in the normal understanding, seem to arise as a result of perception. Whatever it is that "falls" in the "woods" when no-one is there, it is nothing that we would recognise
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I have to rely on what I read. . . . Here is a web site devoted to the theory. Neither of these negates the bogus application of QM used as a basis for this bogus philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote
This is an excerpt from this link that expresses the idea far better than I can. Discover Mind&Brain/Cosmology
...since the 1920s, quantum physics experiments have routinely shown the opposite: Results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the famous two-slit experiment. When someone watches a subatomic particle or a bit of light pass through the slits, the particle behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave that can inhabit all possibilitiesincluding somehow passing through both holes at the same time.
[/quote] That's really, really bad. The "double slit" experiment shows particle-like behaviour when one slit is open and wave-like behaviour when both are open, not depending on whether someone is watching he slits. In fact there have been no QM experiments which show that the presence or a conscious observer has any effect at all. So all we have is philosophical speculation (to be kind) - and a major misunderstanding of what experiment has actually shown. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
That's really, really bad. The "double slit" experiment shows particle-like behaviour when one slit is open and wave-like behaviour when both are open, not depending on whether someone is watching he slits As I understand it the important elements of the double slit experiment in terms of QM doesn't simply depend on there being one or two slits. If a measurement is made to determine which slit the particle passed through then the interference pattern vanishes. I agree that a conscious observe is not necessarily part of the equation but 'watching the slits', or any other way of determining which-way information, does remove the interference pattern. TTFN, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5050 days) Posts: 87 Joined: |
PaulK writes: That's really, really bad. The "double slit" experiment shows particle-like behaviour when one slit is open and wave-like behaviour when both are open, not depending on whether someone is watching he slits. You missed the target by a mile with that statement.
In fact there have been no QM experiments which show that the presence or a conscious observer has any effect at all. If you don't read about them, you won't hear about it.Have you seen the delayed choice experiment or the one done with the eraser? So all we have is philosophical speculation (to be kind) - and a major misunderstanding of what experiment has actually shown. Great that we have someone who at last understands quantum mechanics, because on the whole it is still a very poorly understood theory ontolgy-wise. Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Scientists wanders out of the field of expertise, embarrasses self with silly ideas. News at 11.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024