Came across some interesting new thinking is science of the existential questions we sometime deal with here

[imported_gardener]

Biocentrism reminds me of the old creationist foil about the "laws of nature" being merely man's perceptions of the hand of god.

While I freely admit we have limitations on our perceptions of the cosmos, I'll take a narrow interpretation of those limitations...they are our own. We are not the sum of all things. We've been here a few miliseconds of time, the cosmos was here before us, it will continue when we are finished, others will follow, or not.

I own a honda commerical lawnmower. It is the lense through which I see all other lawnmowers. But there are other lawnmowers. If my lawnmower ceases to exist, I am certain I will be able to get another lawnmower.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I woke up this morning I was in the midst of a dream where I was discussing two concepts. I was using names for them that do not exist any more than the ideas they represented now mean anything to me either. I remember one of the names I think.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
i: Fascinating, but also very reaching. The author uses the mathematical models of quantum physics to explain the nature of uncertainty, and at the end of the article, criticizes the Mathematics that scientists adhere to.

M: You say the author does that but can you be specific as to how he uses discredited math to later support math or whatever it is you see?

Sorry, moonbeam, but I didn't mean to say the author used discredited math - I just said he seems to use it as it serves his point - early in the article, he uses the uncertainty of quantum mechanics and its probabilistic nature, while at the end of the article he seems to have little regard for other mathematics.

i: He attacks the traditional concepts of time & space. Concepts, that, still today are in revision. While he makes salient points that grant purchase to his skepticism of our current understanding of these entities, he does little to bolster his own view other than coaxing the reader to suspend disbelief, if only for a moment and imagine that the world is contigent on his or her perception of it.

M: How so. I am not really somebody who just takes people's word for things. For example, I might say, he doesn't either and while you might be right, somebody who likes my name better might agree with me.

True, but one of us would be right, would they not?

i: And yet fact remains that stray bullets can kill a man, whether the shot was heard, seen, imagined, or perceived. Perception does indeed affect outcomes, as the author clearly stated, but it does so according to physical laws, however indeterministic, not whim; not fancy.

M: This is a distinction with a difference? If consciousness creates the universe it does so according to law and not whim, no?

I hadn't considered that, but even that viewpoint presupposes a law that operates outside the universe that conciousness creates, does it not?

 

[Brigandier]

This article doesn't state that humans invent the universe, it states that life does. This is a difference many are missing, yes the universe is bigger than us but that's because humans are really a tiny part of life.

 

[Moonbeam]

i: Sorry, moonbeam, but I didn't mean to say the author used discredited math - I just said he seems to use it as it serves his point - early in the article, he uses the uncertainty of quantum mechanics and its probabilistic nature, while at the end of the article he seems to have little regard for other mathematics.

M: Maybe so. I hear you but I don't actually see what you mean. I didn't notice any disregard myself.

i: True, but one of us would be right, would they not?

M: Probably unless it's one of those particle wave sorts of thing. But anyway, I am deep into the realization that people create their own reality and don't see the same world as I do.

i: I hadn't considered that, but even that viewpoint presupposes a law that operates outside the universe that consciousness creates, does it not?

M: I don't know. If consciousness is creating the universe it is doing so by observation of what was previously indeterministic or unobserved, in other words not part of the created universe. So it seems that we arrive back to the mirror, the universe is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection and maybe that's what causes time.

 

[disappoint]

Typical low IQ, without a clue drivel. Perfectly delectable morsels of meaningless mantra to those without any formal education in science. Try reading about science written by a scientist, not a scrambled eggs for brained philospher or journalist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Typical low IQ, without a clue drivel. Perfectly delectable morsels of meaningless mantra to those without any formal education in science. Try reading about science written by a scientist, not a scrambled eggs for brained philospher or journalist.

Hehehehe, how embarrassing for you. The article begins thus:

Mind & Brain / Cosmology The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself
Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.

by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman
From the May 2009 issue; published online May 1, 2009

Adapted from Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, published by BenBella Books in May 2009.

Berman is an astronomer, by the way.

 

[spittledip]

That has nothing to do with physics or science, that is just talking about philosophy.

science is philosophy's child. You would not have science without ideas like these.

 

[werepossum]

Fascinating read, thanks. Quantum physics never fails to amaze me, as it seems to imply that either we make reality, or G-d makes it for us, as needed. I have often wondered if in observing phenomena like sub-atomic particles we actually change the universe or merely our perception of it. If the former, what affect (if any) will our collapsing probability waves into particles have on the universe?

I still don't understand why entanglement doesn't violate the universal speed limit, though, or why we can't use it for faster-than-light communications. Seems to me that an entangled pair of photons are basically the makings of Morse code - or any other serial digital communications method.

 

[blackangst1]

See my sig.

 

[Modelworks]

Really a good read. I think people should keep an open mind. If you want to believe in the easter bunny that is fine with me and I don't look down on you for it.

Another interesting perspective that sort of ties in with the author of the OP article.



http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1136/jewish/Something-from-Nothing.htm

The good stuff starts around the part:

To begin with, "something from something" is indeed an all-encompassing presupposition that ultimately explains everything that goes on in the world. Simply stated, it is the assumption of cause and effect.

I read it about a month ago and since then it has really stayed in my thoughts quite a bit. There is an in-built limitation in human thinking that everything has to come from something, cause and effect, but it only works to a point. If you try to conceive of things like the big bang, you get all kinds of theories , except that you never hear what created the event itself, and if you know what that was, then what created the event, that created the event that created the big bang.

Try to imagine how something can just exist and for me it is almost like a mental block exist that makes me feel it can't be so, yet the other option is an infinite chain of events creating each other.

 

[HumblePie]

Part of the mumbo jumbo I come across by some whackos like this is based upon "perception" of reality.

As someone else said, reality is real, but our perception of it is limited. This is a true enough statement. We can only experience reality through our sense of perception. However, that doesn't limit us as most people seem to think it does. This is the concept people most don't understand.

For example. We know of light spectrums outside our field of vision. Why? We can't see them so how do we know? We can see the effects of them and we know other animals sometimes can see them and we can see their behavior to something we can't. We use other indicators of what we can perceive to show us what we can't. That is part of the discovery of science. Because of that we can adapt things to allow us to perceive things we normally couldn't. For example, no one I know can see into the infrared spectrum, but with the right goggles anyone can. No one I know can view an atom with the naked eye, but with an electron microscope we all can.

This is the discovery crux of science, to find out what we don't know and can't perceive normally to finally give us a more significant view of reality.

What I hate is all these people thinking they are "deep" and using the fact that there are still things "beyond our perception" as proof of concept for whatever inane answer they come up with. Be it God, or something else as stupid. Sure some events happens which can't be explained, and some repeatable events are being experimented upon that can't be fully explained yet either. Just because there are things out there that can't be explained yet does NOT PROVE THERE IS A GOD. It just proves that something is unexplained at that point, that is all. It just proves we need to continue searching, looking, and discovering to find ways to explain reality around us. Not to sit on our asses and assume that some fairy tell we come up with from God to the boogeyman is the answer to the questions we can't readily answer right now.

 

[WHAMPOM]

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

A stone rolls best down hill.

 

[disappoint]

Hehehehe, how embarrassing for you. The article begins thus:

Mind & Brain / Cosmology The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself
Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.

by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman
From the May 2009 issue; published online May 1, 2009

Adapted from Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, published by BenBella Books in May 2009.

Berman is an astronomer, by the way.

Oh my, I am red faced. What was I thinking? I bow down before the superior intellect before me.

BTW Happy Birthday Sir Isaac Newton! I hope he isn't rolling over in his grave from reading this thread. Greatest scientist of all time. I'll bet you don't know why though. Go ahead and do your homework and google him to find out.

 

[disappoint]

...I still don't understand why entanglement doesn't violate the universal speed limit, though, or why we can't use it for faster-than-light communications. Seems to me that an entangled pair of photons are basically the makings of Morse code - or any other serial digital communications method.

Just because we haven't done so yet, does not mean it can't be done. According to this wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
the question of superluminal communication remains open. Remember it's called the no-communication theorem for a reason. It's theoretical, not proven.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't buy it. It isn't even original. Philosophies of pure subjectivism or even solipsism have been around for a long time. They are just rationalizations for human egocentrism. Solipsism = egocentrism = nihilism.

I don't have a problem acknowledging the existence of objective reality, nor should anyone else. I am not so egocentric as to belief that nothing exists outside my own consciousness.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh my, I am red faced. What was I thinking? I bow down before the superior intellect before me.

BTW Happy Birthday Sir Isaac Newton! I hope he isn't rolling over in his grave from reading this thread. Greatest scientist of all time. I'll bet you don't know why though. Go ahead and do your homework and google him to find out.

Was it this:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1202093

Or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't buy it. It isn't even original. Philosophies of pure subjectivism or even solipsism have been around for a long time. They are just rationalizations for human egocentrism. Solipsism = egocentrism = nihilism.

I don't have a problem acknowledging the existence of objective reality, nor should anyone else. I am not so egocentric as to belief that nothing exists outside my own consciousness.

- wolf

Maybe when you become a bit less egocentric you won't be so sure of anything at all.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sorry, you lost me when you put "god" and "science" together.

It doesn`t take much to lose close minded people......you didn`t even bother to read the article did you...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yep. Science isn't into dealing with MAN-made dogmatic unquestionable fantasies.

how so..
So you and OCGuy are brothers???

 

[JEDIYoda]

That is just another part of the article implying something that is wrong. Such as transmitting information faster than the speed of light.

Did it imply something is wrong???
Or is something wrong because you don`t understand it?

Has it been proven that nothing can move faster than light.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Typical low IQ, without a clue drivel. Perfectly delectable morsels of meaningless mantra to those without any formal education in science. Try reading about science written by a scientist, not a scrambled eggs for brained philospher or journalist.

I feel sorry for you.....another follower of OCGuy....so sad.....

 

[HumblePie]

Did it imply something is wrong???
Or is something wrong because you don`t understand it?

Has it been proven that nothing can move faster than light.....

Actually, no. That's the interesting point in these tests that give rise to ideas such as warp speed or other things that may trancend the speed of light. We have have a repeatable test with what has been deemed "quantum coupling" if my memory serves me correctly. That's the point of science. It finds something new and interesting that tests previously held theories and then researches why it is. It doesn't stop and say, "Oh hey we didn't think that was ever possible before so now we'll just check it off as God's Will and head home today!"

I never understood why people use new discoveries that have yet to be answered by science or math as the basis for proving "there's something out there!!!" in reference to something paranormal.

 

[woolfe9999]

Maybe when you become a bit less egocentric you won't be so sure of anything at all.

Beliving that a world exists outside my own consciousness is not the same thing as claiming to be absolutely certain about anything in particular within that world.

Please explain how believing that reality exists only in one's own mind, and by necessary implication that any search for knowledge is therefore absolutely futile, is not a recipe for total nihilism.

- wolf

 

[disappoint]

I feel sorry for you.....another follower of OCGuy....so sad.....

Follower? Son I not only don't follow, I'm so far in the lead you can't even see me. You can guess though...but nice try.