The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 188048 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Why a Physics Revolution Might Be on Its Way :

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
alancalverd : See the following :


Robert Lanza, MD - BIOCENTRISM :

Source :  http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/


Biocentrism (cosmology) :


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Biocentrism (from Greek: βίος, bios, “life”; and κέντρον, kentron, “center”) — also known as the biocentric universe — is a theory proposed in 2007 by American scientist Robert Lanza. In this view, life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos — life creates the universe rather than the other way around. Biocentrism asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness.

Lanza’s biocentric theory builds on quantum physics. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism places biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything. Critics have questioned whether the theory is falsifiable. Lanza has argued that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.


Theory:

Lanza argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson.

He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it.

 According to a Discover magazine article adapted from Lanza’s book, “biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful unified field theories of eight decades ago.”

Lanza’s theory of Biocentrism has seven principles:

    1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An “external” reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

   2- Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.
They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

   3- The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

    4-Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

    5-The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.

   6- Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

   7- Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

Reception :

David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said that Lanza’s “work is a wake-up call.” Nobel laureate E. Donnall Thomas said, “Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work.

 The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole.” Wake Forest University scientist and professor of medicine Anthony Atala stated, “This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come.” Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, pointed out that Lanza’s theory is consistent with quantum mechanics: “What Lanza says in this book is not new.

Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words.

 True, yes; politically correct, hell no!” Indian physician and writer Deepak Chopra stated that “Lanza’s insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting” and that “his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world.

 It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence.”
« Last Edit: 11/11/2014 18:23:53 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

Sorry if it seems I am just being lazy by posting this link to a rebuttal, Don. If there is a particular point or counter point you want to discuss in depth, let me know.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Sean Carrolls comments on biocentrism:

    Like Chopra, Lanza mixes (1) completely legitimate (but strange sounding) statements about quantum mechanics, (2) tendentious interpretations of what quantum mechanics says that are defensible only because they are so vague, and (3) outright craziness. Quantum effects aren’t usually perceptible on the macro level, but of course they can be. So that part is legitimate.

    Things like “these waves of probability are not waves of material” are somewhat reminiscent of the truth—but sufficiently nebulous that they allow him to say things like “outside of that idea, the wave is not there” and “nothing is real unless it’s perceived,” which are just nonsense. The real problem with the Chopra/Lanza attempt to put “life” at the center of how we understand quantum mechanics is that no definition of “life” is ever offered. In physics, our theories map formal mathematical structures onto observable reality. The quantum state is a vector in Hilbert space, a well-defined mathematical object. It evolves according to the Schrödinger equation, a well-defined differential equation. What is “life,” or “consciousness,” from this perspective? What mathematical space is it an element of? What equations tell us how it evolves? These “theories” are hard to attack because there’s no there there, all you have are some fuzzy words and fast talk.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Sean Carrolls comments on biocentrism:
...These “theories” are hard to attack because there’s no there there, all you have are some fuzzy words and fast talk.
Pretty much sums up the whole 'quantum consciousness' schtick.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Robert Lanza, MD - BIOCENTRISM :

Source :  http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/


Biocentrism (cosmology) :



Lanza’s theory of Biocentrism has seven principles:

    1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An “external” reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

   2- Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.
They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

   3- The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

    4-Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

    5-The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.

   6- Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

   7- Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.




Don - Since you are unlikely to have made it to the end of the article, I thought I would post the summarizing points at the end.

10. Conclusions

Let us recapitulate the main points:

(a) Space and time exist, even though they are relative and not absolute.

(b) Modern quantum theory, long after the now-discredited Copenhagen interpretation, is consistent with the idea of an objective universe that exists without a conscious observer.

(c) Lanza and Chopra misunderstand and misuse the anthropic principle.

(d) The biocentrism approach does not provide any new information about the nature of consciousness, and relies on ignoring recent advances in understanding consciousness from a scientific perspective.

(e) Both authors show thinly-veiled disdain for Darwin, while not actually addressing his science in the article. Chopra has demonstrated his utter ignorance of evolution multiple times.

Modern physics is a vast and multi-layered web that stretches over the entire deck of cards. All other natural sciences – all truths that exist in the material world- are interrelated, held together by the mathematical reality of physics. Fundamental theories in physics are supported by multiple lines of evidence from many different scientific disciplines, developed and tested over decades. Clearly, those who propose new theories that purport to redefine fundamental assumptions or paradigms in physics have their work cut out for them. Our contention is that the theory of biocentrism, if analysed properly, does not hold up to scrutiny. It is not the paradigm change that it claims to be. It is also our view that one can find much meaning, beauty and purpose in a naturalistic view of the universe, without having to resort to mystical notions of reality.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 14:40:37 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Physicist Proposes New Theory of Gravity—Gravity Does Not Exist :


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/20006-physicist-proposes-new-theory-of-gravity-gravity-does-not-exist/

Quote from the above displayed link :

"Professor Eric Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.

“For me, gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde told the Times. Of course, the apple will fall to the ground, but the physical laws governing that action may not be the way science has viewed it for the past 300 years.

The core of the theory may be relevant to the lack of order in physical systems. The Times describes his argument as the “bad hair day” theory of gravity. Hair frizzles in the heat because there are more ways for it to curl than to remain straight. Dr. Verlinde postulates that the force we call gravity works in a similar way."  End quote .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

(Prior note : 96 % of the universe is made of unknown dark matter and dark energy , as physicists don't really even know much about the remaining 4 % , despite all their sophisticated theories ,maths, ...including quantum theory and relativity : the latter that are incompatible with each other in fact .

So, physicists are not even close to approaching the nature of reality , if ever , not even remotely close thus : see also that link of mine to "Why a physics revolution might be on its way " here above .

In short : what you mentioned here above , through the words of Caroll or others for that matter , about the alleged fact that physics has been delivering an excellent approximation for  understanding the universe and our place in it , is  simply a hilarious joke.

Reminds me , in another similar context then, of that British physicist in the 1900 who said that there was nothing left to be discovered in physics .All that was needed was more and more precise measurements .

Caroll says basically almost the same thing : there are no significant or relevant forces , fields or laws of physics left to be discovered : yeah, right : he does not know much about that 4% of the universe ,and he dares say non-sense like that through the standard model that's highly likely to be dethroned by the next revolution in physics . 

Not only that , on top of the above : since materialism is false and can thus intrinsically never account for either life or consciousness just through material processes only , let alone  for the origin of life that way , or for the evolution of conscious life ....life and consciousness that are no accidents or side effects or by-products of evolution , for example, to mention just that , then any understanding of the nature of reality , the origin of conscious life , the evolution of conscious life , the beginning of the universe ....any unified theory thus can intrinsically  never be accounted for  by material processes or physics only : Life and consciousness must be integrated in any future so-called unified theory as the key and major players in it . )



What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory anyway ? Nothing : he just commented on it .

Lanza is a prominent biologist and astronomer with impeccable credentials , not some sort of a new age lunatic or something like that :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza

Chopra is not my cup of tea either , needless to add .


I expect you to comment on  Lanza's theory yourself ,on "Quantum Enigma " ....,  via  your own words , not just make an appeal to authority , like to that of materialist Caroll .

The latter cannot but a-priori reject any non-materialist interpretation of quantum theory , any non-materialist theory or model of consciousness and life , let alone that he can even consider  any non-materialist theory of nature,simply because he's so entrenched  in his materialist dogmas which he has been mistaking for science , like the man who mistook his wife for a hat , or like someone who looks at or observes the world through that materialist key hole , while assuming that that materialist key hole version of reality is the real reality  .

Caroll has even admitted (He has no choice but to admit that , otherwise he would be a vulgar liar , a bad scientist ,on top of being a materialist deluded one ) that the interpretation dilemma of quantum theory has not been solved yet , so, how can he say that Lanza's interpretation of quantum theory is false then ? , while Lanza and others have been offering a simple explanation of quantum theory : consciousness interacting with sub-atomic particles ...: Occam's razor .

To be honest , i have no respect whatsoever for materialist scientists in fact , since they have been ignoring and denying the overwhelming evidence against materialism ,or they would just try to go around that evidence  by inventing unfalsifiable bullshit theories like the hidden variable  theory ,decoherence theory , multiverse and parallel  universes theories , string theories and the rest .... and the fact that the major anomaly of them all :consciousness , not to mention the latter's related anomalies and processes , can never be intrinsically accounted for by materialism is evidence enough for the fact that materialism is false , including all its extensions like the materialist theory or model of consciousness .

Even Einstein's special and general relativity theories , regarding the nature of space and time and regarding the "force " of gravity are in fact incompatible with that simple explanation of quantum theory that has been delivered by many prominent physicists like by Von Neumann school, like by all founders of quantum theory and by many other physicists yesterday and today like Amit Goswami , like the authors of "Quantum Enigma : physics encounters consciousness " and many others, that's why Einstein could not bring himself to accept quantum theory ,while so unsuccessfully trying to come up with a unified physical theory during the last half of his life  .

Ironically enough , the original interpretation of quantum theory to which Einstein was exposed at that time could not but be incompatible with his own relativity theories .

Why should one listen to a materialist scientist on the subject then, since he /she would just be a-priori assuming that consciousness is just a material process like the rest of them all in the universe ? .

That Caroll would say such astonishing things about Lanza's theory , for example , is pretty predictable , since he's a materialist first , and a scientist only second .

Caroll should in fact know better than throwing stones at his opponents since he 's been living within a false and fragile materialist key hole sand "made of glass " sand castle , where all extensions of materialism are false .Not only that , they represent such an insane puerile and ridiculous distortion of the nature of reality .

So, as you can understand as a result of the above :  i do not see any worth or value in anything materialists like Caroll can say about non-materialist theories , models , experiments , ....since they would just have to reject them, otherwise they would be ceasing to be materialists , no mater how much evidence or lack of it those non-materialist theories , models ...would or would not deliver .


Furthermore , since materialism is false , then the nature of reality cannot be exclusively material or physical, and hence consciousness that's irreducible to the former , and life that cannot be accounted for by just material processes , have to be integrated in any so-called unified theory of the universe, not to mention the fact that any exclusively physical so-called unified theory  is doomed to fail ,taking into consideration all the above .

Inter-disciplinary synthesis of all sciences must in fact be the answer , where life and consciousness must be integrated in that synthesis ,life and consciousness as key and major players in any future so-called unified theory that hence cannot be just physical : most of current physics will have to be abandoned ,including that materialist so-called standard model +relativity theories ...and physics alone can no longer be assumed to be able to deliver a so-called unified theory , since materialism is false , and hence the nature of reality is not exclusively material or physical ....

Lanza , Goswami , Fred Kuttner , Bruce Rosenblum and others were /are the ones whose conceptions of the nature of reality might be paving the way for a totally new science on the subject, not that insane puerile and ridiculous key hole distortion  or materialist version of the nature of reality .
« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 18:54:03 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge " Einstein .

Imagination that was behind many scientific discoveries, works of art , literature ...and much more .

You have thus to have a creative and healthy imagination, not to mention vision + some trained experienced informed enlightened intuition to be able to understand the above , or just what Lanza and others were saying on the subject .

Materialism has been killing and reducing your imagination, vision ,creativity, intelligence  ....no wonder, you have no idea  .

Materialism that says that they are just the product of electromagnetism, neurophysiology , chemistry and physics , paradoxically enough : absurd puerile insane ridiculous unscientific materialist bullshit,for which there is of course , needless to add , absolutely and certainly no empirical evidence whatsoever  .

So, your imagination , thoughts ,creativity, intelligence ,the rest of your consciousness  and  mind,not to mention your unconsciousness or sub-consciousness ,  not to mention the self -identity    ...do not exist as such = just illusions = just pragmatic survival strategies = paradoxical bullshit , in the name of ...science .

Materialism that says that consciousness and life are just accidental side effects or by-products of evolution through the so-called unguided blind and random natural selection, that can be explained through material processes only .....

And you dare call all that materialist bullshit and fairy tales ...science ?

Materialism is , metaphorically , a bit like this following virus as the subject matter of the following scientific experiment , that makes people  ... stupid :

Only materialists would be 'intelligent' enough as to claim that this following scientific experiment supports their false production theory of consciousness :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/virus-that-makes-humans-more-stupid-discovered-9849920.html

« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 19:32:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
The science or physics behind "Quantum Enigma : Physics Encounters Consciousness " , and behind Lanza's Biocentrism are solid though ,despite the obvious materialist "reasons " behind those materialist gymnastics denials on the subject :

Quantum Enigma ...  :

Controversy :

For some, this is a controversial book. Why? After all, the experimental results we report are completely undisputed. And the explanations of them with quantum theory are completely standard. It’s the book’s focus on the quantum enigma, the mystery beyond the physics, that’s controversial.

Many physicists dismiss this mystery as irrelevant for all practical purposes, and best not emphasized. It displays physics’ encounter with consciousness. Its discussion can be embarrassing. It’s been called our “skeleton in the closet.”

One concern is that some people, seeing the solid science of physics linked to the mystery of the conscious mind, might become susceptible to all sorts of pseudo-scientific nonsense. We physicists can also be uncomfortable seeing our discipline involved with anything so “unphysical.”

What’s unphysical? From its inception, quantum theory involved the observer. To account for the demonstrated facts, quantum theory has the observation of an object instantaneously influencing the behavior of other distant objects–even if no physical force connects them. Quantum theory also has the existence of an object at the particular place where it is observed become an actuality only upon its observation.

But what constitutes an “observation”? It’s not clear. Moreover, as quantum phenomena are now being demonstrated with ever-larger objects, this “quantum measurement problem” gets increasing attention, both by physicists and in popular treatments.

“Observation” cannot be separated from “awareness,” and therefore from “consciousness.” These two concepts themselves involve some mystery. We must be careful. Any broad-ranging discussion of physics’ encounter with consciousness walks the edge of a slippery slope. We therefore work to distinguish the demonstrated facts from speculation (and, of course, from pseudo-science).

But the issues raised by the demonstrated facts intrigue and invite speculation beyond the established physics. Several interpretations of what quantum mechanics is telling us about our world (and about us?) currently contend. Some interpretations are wild.

Since quantum mechanics works well for all practical purposes, some physicists vociferously argue that the mysteries are irrelevant. They should therefore not be emphasized to a lay audience–or even to physics students. Remarkably, the demonstrated facts are quite understandable without any background in physics. Non-physicists can decide, and even speculate, for themselves.

…….

Here are some comments by experts in the foundations of quantum mechanics illustrating the controversy. Some, on both sides, have Nobel Prizes in physics.

First, Arguing that there is no problem:

Tom Banks: “I think there have been clear mathematical arguments given, which show that macroscopic objects (including Schrodinger’s poor cat) made of constituents with local interactions, obey the rules of classical probability theory.  There is nothing more mysterious in QM than that.”

Murray Gell-Mann: “The universe presumably couldn’t care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists.”

N. G. van Kampen: “Quantum mechanics provides a complete and adequate description of the observed physical phenomena on the atomic scale. What else can one wish?…The scandal is that there are still many articles, discussions, and textbooks, which advertise various interpretations and philosophical profundities…Many physicists have not yet learned that they should adjust their ideas to the observed reality rather than the other way round.

Christopher Fuchs and Asher Peres: “Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation.’”…We need nothing more than the fully consistent theory we already have.”

On the other hand, arguing that there is a problem:

J. M. Jauch: “The interpretation [of quantum mechanics] has remained a source of conflict from its inception. . . . For many thoughtful physicists, it has remained a kind of ’skeleton in the closet.’”

Albert Einstein: “I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because. . . physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”

Frank Wilczek: “The relevant literature [on the meaning of quantum theory] is famously contentious and obscure.  I believe it will remain so until someone constructs, within the formalism of quantum mechanics, an ‘observer,’ that is, a model entity whose states correspond to a recognizable caricature of conscious awareness.”

John Bell: “It is likely that the new way of seeing things will astonish us.”

Andrei Linde: “Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?”


This argument on whether or not there is a problem brings up an analogy that accords with our own bias. A couple is in marriage counseling. The wife says, “There’s a problem in our marriage.” Her husband disagrees, saying, “There’s no problem in our marriage.” The marriage counselor knows who’s right.


...............................

« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 20:34:08 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

The science or physics behind "Quantum Enigma ..." ,as well as behind Lanza's Biocentrism are solid , despite those predictable materialist denials or gymnastics on the subject , for obvious reasons .

See my replies to you here above ,in my own words , as well as what the authors of "Quantum Enigma ..." say about the solid physics behind their controversial book ...

Not to mention the fact that "Biocentrism " is also based on solid science as well .

You can detect that , if you only would  read that book (s) from which i can provide you with some relevant excerpts  on the subject .

And since life and consciousness (Not to mention the origin of  conscious life , the evolution of conscious life ...) cannot be reduced to just material processes ,and since materialism is false ,  they would have to be integrated in any future unified theory that cannot be just physical thus , as major or key players in it .

Materialists cannot but deny all that , otherwise , they would be ceasing to be materialists ...They can only come up with a -priori false materialist refutations that have been already intrinsically refuted ...

Stop arguing with me then from the false materialistic perspective, please  . Thanks.Cheers.

Try then to refute Lanza's theory , for example, from his own scientific non-materialistic perspective then, through his theory's 7 points , point per point  .

P.S.: Don't you realise the obvious and elementary fact that you are a -priori refuting yourself through the self-refuting "arguments " of materialist scientists ,since materialism is absolutely and certainly false ,without a shadow or a ghost lol of a doubt , thanks mainly to the very nature of consciousness itself and its related anomalies and processes ?





« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 20:54:15 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Physicist Proposes New Theory of Gravity—Gravity Does Not Exist :


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/20006-physicist-proposes-new-theory-of-gravity-gravity-does-not-exist/
Once again, an old paper that has been experimentally falsified (also, gravity as an entropic force is not Verlinde's idea, it's actually been around for a while). But an interesting idea.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory anyway ? Nothing : he just commented on it .Lanza is a prominent biologist and astronomer with impeccable credentials , not some sort of a new age lunatic or something like that :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza

Chopra is not my cup of tea either , needless to add .

Lanza and the new age lunatic have co-authored articles on biocentrism and evolution.

Quote
I expect you to comment on  Lanza's theory yourself ,on "Quantum Enigma " ....,  via  your own words , not just make an appeal to authority....

Hahahahahahahaa.
 That's pretty funny coming from the person who has posted reams and reams of excerpts, book jacket praise, youtube videos, etc. and almost never bothers to summarize, support or explain the main ideas in any of it ("I'm just the messenger. Don't be lazy.")
When I do take the time and effort to address your excerpts point by point, you ignore all of it, and then restate your same unsubstantiated claims. I'd be insulted, but that is how you engage everyone who bothers to respond to your posts.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2014 22:49:32 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
Biocentrism (from Greek: βίος, bios, “life”; and κέντρον, kentron, “center”) — also known as the biocentric universe — is a theory proposed in 2007 by American scientist Robert Lanza. In this view, life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos — life creates the universe rather than the other way around. Biocentrism asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness.

Crap. The universe, indeed even this planet, is older than life. Assertion is not proof, or even evidence. It's just mumbo jumbo.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
As, I said earlier, Don, if there is a particular point in Biocentrism you'd like to discuss or examine more closely, I'm more than willing. But don't just hand me a homework assignment, as in  "read all this, and write a 5 page essay that I will promptly ignore if you don't agree with me."
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
As, I said earlier, Don, if there is a particular point in Biocentrism you'd like to discuss or examine more closely, I'm more than willing. But don't just hand me a homework assignment, as in  "read all this, and write a 5 page essay that I will promptly ignore if you don't agree with me."
I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that request to be honored Cheryl. Don assumes that endless paragraphs of his opinions will stand as proof. People get turned off very rapidly when confronted with this behavior.

When I was in college, my literature Professor gave me some valuable advice concerning how one should present information to others.

He said: "It is always best to present your material in short but concise relevant sentences resisting the tendency to overelaborate. You will have better luck at maintaining the attention of your audience if you do so. If you go on and on with semi relevant or irrelevant information, you will loose your audience very quickly."

Don lost my interest early on.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

(Prior note : 96 % of the universe is made of unknown dark matter and dark energy , as physicists don't really even know much about the remaining 4 % , despite all their sophisticated theories ,maths, ...including quantum theory and relativity : the latter that are incompatible with each other in fact .

So, physicists are not even close to approaching the nature of reality , if ever , not even remotely close thus : see also that link of mine to "Why a physics revolution might be on its way " here above .

In short : what you mentioned here above , through the words of Caroll or others for that matter , about the alleged fact that physics has been delivering an excellent approximation for  understanding the universe and our place in it , is  simply a hilarious joke.

Reminds me , in another similar context then, of that British physicist in the 1900 who said that there was nothing left to be discovered in physics .All that was needed was more and more precise measurements .

Caroll says basically almost the same thing : there are no significant or relevant forces , fields or laws of physics left to be discovered : yeah, right : he does not know much about that 4% of the universe ,and he dares say non-sense like that through the standard model that's highly likely to be dethroned by the next revolution in physics . 

Not only that , on top of the above : since materialism is false and can thus intrinsically never account for either life or consciousness just through material processes only , let alone  for the origin of life that way , or for the evolution of conscious life ....life and consciousness that are no accidents or side effects or by-products of evolution , for example, to mention just that , then any understanding of the nature of reality , the origin of conscious life , the evolution of conscious life , the beginning of the universe ....any unified theory thus can intrinsically  never be accounted for  by material processes or physics only : Life and consciousness must be integrated in any future so-called unified theory as the key and major players in it . )



What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory anyway ? Nothing : he just commented on it .

Lanza is a prominent biologist and astronomer with impeccable credentials , not some sort of a new age lunatic or something like that :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza

Chopra is not my cup of tea either , needless to add .


I expect you to comment on  Lanza's theory yourself ,on "Quantum Enigma " ....,  via  your own words , not just make an appeal to authority , like to that of materialist Caroll .

The latter cannot but a-priori reject any non-materialist interpretation of quantum theory , any non-materialist theory or model of consciousness and life , let alone that he can even consider  any non-materialist theory of nature,simply because he's so entrenched  in his materialist dogmas which he has been mistaking for science , like the man who mistook his wife for a hat , or like someone who looks at or observes the world through that materialist key hole , while assuming that that materialist key hole version of reality is the real reality  .

Caroll has even admitted (He has no choice but to admit that , otherwise he would be a vulgar liar , a bad scientist ,on top of being a materialist deluded one ) that the interpretation dilemma of quantum theory has not been solved yet , so, how can he say that Lanza's interpretation of quantum theory is false then ? , while Lanza and others have been offering a simple explanation of quantum theory : consciousness interacting with sub-atomic particles ...: Occam's razor .

To be honest , i have no respect whatsoever for materialist scientists in fact , since they have been ignoring and denying the overwhelming evidence against materialism ,or they would just try to go around that evidence  by inventing unfalsifiable bullshit theories like the hidden variable  theory ,decoherence theory , multiverse and parallel  universes theories , string theories and the rest .... and the fact that the major anomaly of them all :consciousness , not to mention the latter's related anomalies and processes , can never be intrinsically accounted for by materialism is evidence enough for the fact that materialism is false , including all its extensions like the materialist theory or model of consciousness .

Even Einstein's special and general relativity theories , regarding the nature of space and time and regarding the "force " of gravity are in fact incompatible with that simple explanation of quantum theory that has been delivered by many prominent physicists like by Von Neumann school, like by all founders of quantum theory and by many other physicists yesterday and today like Amit Goswami , like the authors of "Quantum Enigma : physics encounters consciousness " and many others, that's why Einstein could not bring himself to accept quantum theory ,while so unsuccessfully trying to come up with a unified physical theory during the last half of his life  .

Ironically enough , the original interpretation of quantum theory to which Einstein was exposed at that time could not but be incompatible with his own relativity theories .

Why should one listen to a materialist scientist on the subject then, since he /she would just be a-priori assuming that consciousness is just a material process like the rest of them all in the universe ? .

That Caroll would say such astonishing things about Lanza's theory , for example , is pretty predictable , since he's a materialist first , and a scientist only second .

Caroll should in fact know better than throwing stones at his opponents since he 's been living within a false and fragile materialist key hole sand "made of glass " sand castle , where all extensions of materialism are false .Not only that , they represent such an insane puerile and ridiculous distortion of the nature of reality .

So, as you can understand as a result of the above :  i do not see any worth or value in anything materialists like Caroll can say about non-materialist theories , models , experiments , ....since they would just have to reject them, otherwise they would be ceasing to be materialists , no mater how much evidence or lack of it those non-materialist theories , models ...would or would not deliver .


Furthermore , since materialism is false , then the nature of reality cannot be exclusively material or physical, and hence consciousness that's irreducible to the former , and life that cannot be accounted for by just material processes , have to be integrated in any so-called unified theory of the universe, not to mention the fact that any exclusively physical so-called unified theory  is doomed to fail ,taking into consideration all the above .

Inter-disciplinary synthesis of all sciences must in fact be the answer , where life and consciousness must be integrated in that synthesis ,life and consciousness as key and major players in any future so-called unified theory that hence cannot be just physical : most of current physics will have to be abandoned ,including that materialist so-called standard model +relativity theories ...and physics alone can no longer be assumed to be able to deliver a so-called unified theory , since materialism is false , and hence the nature of reality is not exclusively material or physical ....

Lanza , Goswami , Fred Kuttner , Bruce Rosenblum and others were /are the ones whose conceptions of the nature of reality might be paving the way for a totally new science on the subject, not that insane puerile and ridiculous key hole distortion  or materialist version of the nature of reality .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
As, I said earlier, Don, if there is a particular point in Biocentrism you'd like to discuss or examine more closely, I'm more than willing. But don't just hand me a homework assignment, as in  "read all this, and write a 5 page essay that I will promptly ignore if you don't agree with me."

Did you read Biocentrism ? No .

What do you know about it other than what you heard from Caroll on the subject ? Nothing

What do you know about quantum theory ? Not much , i guess  .

What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory ? Nothing .

Who said Chopra was / is a new age lunatic ? Not me .

Can you think outside of the materialist key hole box ? I don't think so .

So, what are you talking about then ?

What makes you feel or think that you might be so qualified as to pretend to be able to deliver what you said above ? Nothing .

« Last Edit: 13/11/2014 19:39:04 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


Did you read Biocentrism ? No .



Why bother? If Don's summary is correct, it's drivel. And who are we to doubt Don?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


Did you read Biocentrism ? No .



Why bother? If Don's summary is correct, it's drivel. And who are we to doubt Don?

Really ? You don't know what you're missing .

Check it out for yourself then , physicist : you might learn something from it , who knows ?

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/

If you want to , i can display here some relevant excerpts from Lanza's book in question .

Don't be a narrow-minded materialist : science is all about methodology and epistemology , about free inquiry , not about some ontological biased preferences like that of the false materialist conception of nature , or false materialistic naturalism ...

« Last Edit: 13/11/2014 19:33:52 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Physicist Proposes New Theory of Gravity—Gravity Does Not Exist :


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/20006-physicist-proposes-new-theory-of-gravity-gravity-does-not-exist/
Once again, an old paper that has been experimentally falsified (also, gravity as an entropic force is not Verlinde's idea, it's actually been around for a while). But an interesting idea.

Einstein's general relativity theory that explains the "force " of gravity via  the curvature of space-time might likely be false , otherwise , the universe would be shrinking ,thanks to all that curvature of spacetime.

Not to mention his special relativity theory regarding the nature of space and time that's also incompatible with that simple explanation of quantum theory: consciousness interacting instantaneously with sub-atomic particles , with all particles and objects in fact , large and small .

Excerpt from "Biocentrism " :

When Tomorrow Comes before Yesterday, Chapter 7  :

I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum
mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you
can possibly avoid it, “But how can it be like that?”
because you will go “down the drain” into a blind
alley from which nobody has yet escaped.
—Nobel physicist Richard Feynman
Quantum mechanics describes the tiny world of the atom and
its constituents, and their behavior, with stunning if probabilistic
accuracy. It is used to design and build much of the
technology that drives modern society, such as lasers and advanced
computers. But quantum mechanics in many ways threatens not
only our essential and absolute notions of space and time but all
Newtonian-type conceptions of order and secure prediction.
It is worthwhile to consider here the old maxim of Sherlock
Holmes, that “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” In this chapter,
we will sift through the evidence of quantum theory as deliberately
as Holmes might without being thrown off the trail by the prejudices
of three hundred years of science. The reason scientists go “down
the drain into a blind alley,” is that they refuse to accept the immediate
and obvious implications of the experiments. Biocentrism is the
only humanly comprehensible explanation for how the world can be
like that, and we are unlikely to shed any tears when we leave the
conventional ways of thinking. As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg
put it, “It’s an unpleasant thing to bring people into the basic laws of
physics.”
In order to account for why space and time are relative to the
observer, Einstein assigned tortuous mathematical properties to
the changing warpages of space-time, an invisible, intangible entity
that cannot be seen or touched. Although this was indeed successful
in showing how objects move, especially in extreme conditions
of strong gravity or fast motion, it resulted in many people assuming
that space-time is an actual entity, like cheddar cheese, rather
than a mathematical figment that serves the specific purpose of
letting us calculate motion. Space-time, of course, was hardly the
first time that mathematical tools have been confused with tangible
reality: the square root of minus one and the symbol for infinity
are just two of the many mathematically indispensable entities
that exist only conceptually—neither has an analog in the physical
universe.
This dichotomy between conceptual and physical reality continued
with a vengeance with the advent of quantum mechanics.
Despite the central role of the observer in this theory—extending it
from space and time to the very properties of matter itself—some scientists
still dismiss the observer as an inconvenience, a non-entity.

In the quantum world, even Einstein’s updated version of Newton’s
clock—the solar system as predictable if complex timekeeper—
fails to work. The very concept that independent events can happen
in separate non-linked locations—a cherished notion often called
locality—fails to hold at the atomic level and below, and there’s
increasing evidence it extends fully into the macroscopic as well. In
Einstein’s theory, events in space-time can be measured in relation
to each other, but quantum mechanics calls greater attention to the
nature of measurement itself, one that threatens the very bedrock of
objectivity.
When studying subatomic particles, the observer appears to
alter and determine what is perceived. The presence and methodology
of the experimenter is hopelessly entangled with whatever he is
attempting to observe and what results he gets. An electron turns
out to be both a particle and a wave, but how and, more importantly,
where such a particle will be located remains dependent upon the
very act of observation.
This was new indeed. Pre-quantum physicists, reasonably
assuming an external, objective universe, expected to be able to
determine the trajectory and position of individual particles with
certainty—the way we do with planets. They assumed the behavior
of particles would be completely predictable if everything was
known at the outset—that there was no limit to the accuracy with
which they could measure the physical properties of an object of any
size, given adequate technology.
In addition to quantum uncertainty, another aspect of modern
physics also strikes at the core of Einstein’s concept of discrete entities
and space-time. Einstein held that the speed of light is constant
and that events in one place cannot influence events in another
place simultaneously. In the relativity theories, the speed of light
has to be taken into account for information to travel from one particle
to another. This has been demonstrated to be true for nearly a
century, even when it comes to gravity spreading its influence. In a
vacuum, 186,282.4 miles per second was the law. However, recent
experiments have shown that this is not the case with every kind of
information propagation.
Perhaps the true weirdness started in 1935 when physicists Einstein,
Podolsky, and Rosen dealt with the strange quantum curiosity
of particle entanglement, in a paper so famous that the phenomenon
is still often called an “EPR correlation.” The trio dismissed quantum
theory’s prediction that a particle can somehow “know” what another
one that is thoroughly separated in space is doing, and attributed
any observations along such lines to some as-yet-unidentified local
contamination rather than to what Einstein derisively called “spooky
action at a distance.”
This was a great one-liner, right up there with the small handful
of sayings the great physicist had popularized, such as “God does
not play dice.” It was yet another jab at quantum theory, this time at
its growing insistence that some things only existed as probabilities,
not as actual objects in real locations. This phrase, “spooky action
at a distance,” was repeated in physics classrooms for decades. It
helped keep the true weirdnesses of quantum theory buried below
the public consciousness. Given that experimental apparatuses were
still relatively crude, who dared to say that Einstein was wrong?
But Einstein was wrong. In 1964, Irish physicist John Bell proposed
an experiment that could show if separate particles can influence
each other instantaneously over great distances. First, it is
necessary to create two bits of matter or light that share the same
wave-function (recalling that even solid particles have an energy–
wave nature). With light, this is easily done by sending light into a
special kind of crystal; two photons of light then emerge, each with
half the energy (twice the wavelength) of the one that went in, so
there is no violation of the conservation of energy. The same amount
of total power goes out as went in.

Now, because quantum theory tells us that everything in nature
has a particle nature and a wave nature, and that the object’s behavior
exists only as probabilities, no small object actually assumes a
particular place or motion until its wave-function collapses. What
accomplishes this collapse? Messing with it in any way. Hitting it with a bit of light in order to “take its picture” would instantly do the job.

 But it became increasingly clear that any possible way the
experimenter could take a look at the object would collapse the
wave-function. At first, this look was assumed to be the need to, say,
shoot a photon at an electron in order to measure where it is, and
the realization that the resulting interaction between the two would
naturally collapse the wave-function. In a sense, the experiment had
been contaminated. But as more sophisticated experiments were
devised (see the next chapter), it became obvious that mere knowledge
in the experimenter’s mind is sufficient to cause the wave-function
to collapse.
That was freaky, but it got worse. When entangled particles are
created, the pair share a wave-function. When one member’s wavefunction
collapses, so will the other’s—even if they are separated by
the width of the universe. This means that if one particle is observed
to have an “up spin,” the other instantly goes from being a mere
probability wave to an actual particle with the opposite spin. They
are intimately linked, and in a way that acts as if there’s no space
between them, and no time influencing their behavior.
Experiments from 1997 to 2007 have shown that this is indeed
the case, as if tiny objects created together are endowed with a kind
of ESP. If a particle is observed to make a random choice to go one
way instead of another, its twin will always exhibit the same behavior
(actually the complementary action) at the same moment—even
if the pair are widely separated.
In 1997, Swiss researcher Nicholas Gisin truly started the ball
rolling down this peculiar bowling lane by concocting a particularly
startling demonstration. His team created entangled photons
or bits of light and sent them flying seven miles apart along optical
fibers. One encountered an interferometer where it could take one
of two paths, always chosen randomly. Gisin found that whichever
option a photon took, its twin would always make the other choice
instantaneously.
The momentous adjective here is instantaneous. The second photon’s
reaction was not even delayed by the time light could have
traversed those seven miles (about twenty-six milliseconds) but
instead occurred less than three ten-billionths of a second later, the
limit of the testing apparatus’s accuracy. The behavior is presumed
to be simultaneous.
Although predicted by quantum mechanics, the results continue
to astonish even the very physicists doing the experiments.
It substantiates the startling theory that an entangled twin should
instantly echo the action or state of the other, even if separated by
any distance whatsoever, no matter how great.
This is so outrageous that some have sought an escape clause. A
prominent candidate has been the “detector deficiency loophole,” the
argument that experiments to date had not caught sufficient numbers
of photon-twins. Too small a percentage had been observed by
the equipment, critics suggested, somehow preferentially revealing
just those twins that behaved in synch. But a newer experiment in
2002 effectively closed that loophole. In a paper published in Nature
by a team of researchers from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology led by Dr. David Wineland, entangled pairs of beryllium
ions and a high-efficiency detector proved that, yes, each really does
simultaneously echo the actions of its twin.
Few believe that some new, unknown force or interaction is
being transmitted with zero travel time from one particle to its twin.
Rather, Wineland told one of the authors, “There is some spooky
action at a distance.” Of course, he knew that this is no explanation
at all.
Most physicists argue that relativity’s insuperable lightspeed
limit is not being violated because nobody can use EPR correlations
to send information because the behavior of the sending particle is
always random. Current research is directed toward practical rather
than philosophical concerns: the aim is to harness this bizarre
behavior to create new ultra-powerful quantum computers that, as
Wineland put it, “carry all the weird baggage that comes with quantum
mechanics.”
Through it all, the experiments of the past decade truly seem to
prove that Einstein’s insistence on “locality”—meaning that nothing
can influence anything else at superluminal speeds—is wrong.
Rather, the entities we observe are floating in a field—a field of
mind, biocentrism maintains—that is not limited by the external
space-time Einstein theorized a century ago.
No one should imagine that when biocentrism points to quantum
theory as one major area of support, it is just a single aspect of
quantum phenomena. Bell’s Theorem of 1964, shown experimentally
to be true over and over in the intervening years, does more
than merely demolish all vestiges of Einstein’s (and others’) hopes
that locality can be maintained.
Before Bell, it was still considered possible (though increasingly
iffy) that local realism—an objective independent universe—
could be the truth. Before Bell, many still clung to the millennia-old
assumption that physical states exist before they are measured. Before
Bell, it was still widely believed that particles have definite attributes
and values independent of the act of measuring. And, finally,
thanks to Einstein’s demonstrations that no information can travel
faster than light, it was assumed that if observers are sufficiently far
apart, a measurement by one has no effect on the measurement by
the other.
All of the above are now finished, for keeps.
In addition to the above, three separate major areas of quantum
theory make sense biocentrically but are bewildering otherwise.
We’ll discuss much of this at greater length in a moment, but let’s
begin simply by listing them. The first is the entanglement just cited,
which is a connectedness between two objects so intimate that they
behave as one, instantaneously and forever, even if they are separated
by the width of galaxies. Its spookiness becomes clearer in the
classical two-slit experiment.
The second is complementarity. This means that small objects
can display themselves in one way or another but not both, depending
on what the observer does; indeed, the object doesn’t have an
existence in a specific location and with a particular motion. Only
the observer’s knowledge and actions cause it to come into existence
in some place or with some particular animation.
 Many pairs of such complementary attributes exist. An object can be a wave or a particle but not both, it can inhabit a specific position or display motion but not both, and so on. Its reality depends solely on the observer and his experiment.
The third quantum theory attribute that supports biocentrism
is wave-function collapse, that is, the idea that a physical particle or
bit of light only exists in a blurry state of possibility until its wavefunction
collapses at the time of observation, and only then actually
assumes a definite existence. This is the standard understanding
of what goes on in quantum theory experiments according to the
Copenhagen interpretation, although competing ideas still exist, as
we’ll see shortly.
The experiments of Heisenberg, Bell, Gisin, and Wineland, fortunately,
call us back to experience itself, the immediacy of the here
and now. Before matter can peep forth—as a pebble, a snowflake, or
even a subatomic particle—it has to be observed by a living creature.
This “act of observation” becomes vivid in the famous two-hole
experiment, which in turn goes straight to the core of quantum physics.
It’s been performed so many times, with so many variations, it’s
conclusively proven that if one watches a subatomic particle or a bit
of light pass through slits on a barrier, it behaves like a particle, and
creates solid-looking bam-bam-bam hits behind the individual slits
on the final barrier that measures the impacts. Like a tiny bullet, it
logically passes through one or the other hole. But if the scientists
do not observe the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of waves
that retain the right to exhibit all possibilities, including somehow passing
through both holes at the same time (even though it cannot split
itself up)—and then creating the kind of rippling pattern that only
waves produce.
Dubbed quantum weirdness, this wave–particle duality has befuddled
scientists for decades. Some of the greatest physicists have
described it as impossible to intuit, impossible to formulate into
words, impossible to visualize, and as invalidating common sense
and ordinary perception. Science has essentially conceded that quantum
physics is incomprehensible outside of complex mathematics.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile

How can quantum physics be so impervious to metaphor, visualization,
and language?
Amazingly, if we accept a life-created reality at face value, it all
becomes simple and straightforward to understand. The key question
is “waves of what?” Back in 1926, German physicist Max Born
demonstrated that quantum waves are waves of probability, not waves
of material, as his colleague Schrödinger had theorized. They are
statistical predictions. Thus, a wave of probability is nothing but a
likely outcome. In fact, outside of that idea, the wave is not there!
It’s intangible. As Nobel physicist John Wheeler once said, “No phenomenon
is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
Note that we are talking about discrete objects like photons or
electrons, rather than collections of myriad objects, such as, say, a
train. Obviously, we can get a schedule and arrive to pick up a friend
at a station and be fairly confident that his train actually existed
during our absence, even if we did not personally observe it. (One
reason for this is that as the considered object gets bigger, its wavelength
gets smaller. Once we get into the macroscopic realm, the
waves are too close together to be noticed or measured. They are still
there, however.)
With small discrete particles, however, if they are not being
observed, they cannot be thought of as having any real existence—
either duration or a position in space. Until the mind sets the scaffolding
of an object in place, until it actually lays down the threads
(somewhere in the haze of probabilities that represent the object’s
range of possible values), it cannot be thought of as being either here
or there. Thus, quantum waves merely define the potential location
a particle can occupy. When a scientist observes a particle, it will
be found within the statistical probability for that event to occur.
That’s what the wave defines. A wave of probability isn’t an event
or a phenomenon, it is a description of the likelihood of an event or
phenomenon occurring. Nothing happens until the event is actually
observed.
In our double-slit experiment, it is easy to insist that each photon
or electron—because both these objects are indivisible—must
go through one slit or the other and ask, which way does a particular
photon really go? Many brilliant physicists have devised experiments
that proposed to measure the “which-way” information of a
particle’s path on its route to contributing to an interference pattern.
They all arrived at the astonishing conclusion, however, that it is not
possible to observe both which-way information and the interference
pattern. One can set up a measurement to watch which slit a photon
goes through, and find that the photon goes through one slit and
not the other. However, once this is kind of measurement is set up,
the photons instead strike the screen in one spot, and totally lack
the ripple-interference design; in short, they will demonstrate themselves
to be particles, not waves. The entire double-slit experiment
and all its true amazing weirdness will be laid out with illustrations
in the next chapter.
Apparently, watching it go through the barrier makes the wavefunction
collapse then and there, and the particle loses its freedom
to probabilistically take both choices available to it instead of having
to choose one or the other.
And it still gets screwier. Once we accept that it is not possible to
gain both the which-way information and the interference pattern,
we might take it even further. Let’s say we now work with sets of
photons that are entangled. They can travel far from each other, but
their behavior will never lose their correlation.
So now we let the two photons, call them y and z, go off in
two different directions, and we’ll set up the double-slit experiment
again. We already know that photon y will mysteriously pass
through both slits and create an interference pattern if we measure
nothing about it before it reaches the detection screen. Except, in
our new setup, we’ve created an apparatus that lets us measure the
which-way path of its twin, photon z, miles away. Bingo: As soon as
we activate this apparatus for measuring its twin, photon y instantly
“knows” that we can deduce its own path (because it will always do
the opposite or complementary thing as its twin). Photon y suddenly
stops showing an interference pattern the instant we turn on the
measuring apparatus for far-away photon z, even though we didn’t
bother y in the least. And this would be true—instantly, in real
time—even if y and z lay on opposite sides of the galaxy.
And, though it doesn’t seem possible, it gets spookier still. If we
now let photon y hit the slits and the measuring screen first, and a
split second later measure its twin far away, we should have fooled
the quantum laws. The first photon already ran its course before
we troubled its distant twin. We should therefore be able to learn
both photons’ polarization and been treated to an interference pattern.
Right? Wrong. When this experiment is performed, we get a
non-interference pattern. The y-photon stops taking paths through
both slits retroactively; the interference is gone. Apparently, photon
y somehow knew that we would eventually find out its polarization,
even though its twin had not yet encountered our polarizationdetection
apparatus.
What gives? What does this say about time, about any real existence
of sequence, about present and future? What does it say about
space and separation? What must we conclude about our own roles
and how our knowledge influences actual events miles away, without
any passage of time? How can these bits of light know what will
happen in their future? How can they communicate instantaneously,
faster than light? Obviously, the twins are connected in a special
way that doesn’t break no matter how far apart they are, and in a
way that is independent of time, space, or even causality. And, more
to our point, what does this say about observation and the “field of
mind” in which all these experiments occur?

Meaning . . . ? :

The Copenhagen interpretation, born in the 1920s in the feverish
minds of Heisenberg and Bohr, bravely set out to explain the
bizarre results of the quantum theory experiments, sort of. But, for
most, it was too unsettling a shift in worldview to accept in full.
In a nutshell, the Copenhagen interpretation was the first to claim
what John Bell and others substantiated some forty years later: that
before a measurement is made, a subatomic particle doesn’t really

exist in a definite place or have an actual motion. Instead, it dwells
in a strange nether realm without actually being anywhere in particular.
This blurry indeterminate existence ends only when its wavefunction
collapses. It took only a few years before Copenhagen adherents
were realizing that nothing is real unless it’s perceived. Copenhagen
makes perfect sense if biocentrism is reality; otherwise, it’s a
total enigma.
If we want some sort of alternative to the idea of an object’s wavefunction
collapsing just because someone looked at it, and avoid that
kind of spooky action at a distance, we might jump aboard Copenhagen’s
competitor, the “Many Worlds Interpretation” (MWI), which
says that everything that can happen, does happen. The universe
continually branches out like budding yeast into an infinitude of
universes that contain every possibility, no matter how remote. You
now occupy one of the universes. But there are innumerable other
universes in which another “you,” who once studied photography
instead of accounting, did indeed move to Paris and marry that girl
you once met while hitchhiking. According to this view, embraced
by such modern theorists as Stephen Hawking, our universe has no
superpositions or contradictions at all, no spooky action, and no
non-locality: seemingly contradictory quantum phenomena, along
with all the personal choices you think you didn’t make, exist today
in countless parallel universes.
Which is true? All the entangled experiments of the past decades
point increasingly toward confirming Copenhagen more than anything
else. And this, as we’ve said, strongly supports biocentrism.
Some physicists, like Einstein, have suggested that “hidden variables”
(that is, things not yet discovered or understood) might ultimately
explain the strange counterlogical quantum behavior. Maybe
the experimental apparatus itself contaminates the behavior of the
objects being observed, in ways no one has yet conceived. Obviously,
there’s no possible rebuttal to a suggestion that an unknown variable
is producing some result because the phrase itself is as unhelpful as
a politician’s election promise.

At present, the implications of these experiments are conveniently
downplayed in the public mind because, until recently,
quantum behavior was limited to the microscopic world. However,
this has no basis in reason, and more importantly, it is starting to
be challenged in laboratories around the world. New experiments
carried out with huge molecules called buckyballs show that quantum
reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in. In 2005,
KHCO3 crystals exhibited quantum entanglement ridges one-half
inch high—visible signs of behavior nudging into everyday levels
of discernment. In fact, an exciting new experiment has just been
proposed (so-called scaled-up superposition) that would furnish the
most powerful evidence to date that the biocentric view of the world
is correct at the level of living organisms.
To which we would say—of course.
And so we add a third principle of Biocentrism:
First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a
process that involves our consciousness.
Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions
are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the
same coin and cannot be separated.
Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic
particles—indeed all particles and objects—is inextricably
linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a
conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state
of probability waves.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


Did you read Biocentrism ? No .



Why bother? If Don's summary is correct, it's drivel. And who are we to doubt Don?

Really ? You don't know what you're missing .

Check it out for yourself then , physicist : you might learn something from it , who knows ?

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/

If you want to , i can display here some relevant excerpts from Lanza's book in question .

Don't be a narrow-minded materialist : science is all about methodology and epistemology , about free inquiry , not about some ontological biased preferences like that of the false materialist conception of nature , or false materialistic naturalism ...

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
As, I said earlier, Don, if there is a particular point in Biocentrism you'd like to discuss or examine more closely, I'm more than willing. But don't just hand me a homework assignment, as in  "read all this, and write a 5 page essay that I will promptly ignore if you don't agree with me."

Did you read Biocentrism ? No .

What do you know about it other than what you heard from Caroll on the subject ? Nothing

What do you know about quantum theory ? Not much , i guess  .

What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory ? Nothing .

Who said Chopra was / is a new age lunatic ? Not me .

Can you think outside of the materialist key hole box ? I don't think so .

So, what are you talking about then ?

What makes you feel or think that you might be so qualified as to pretend to be able to deliver what you said above ? Nothing .

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums