Biocentrism

[LMNO]

Basically,

[Template]

Forget the barstool, this guy keeps trying to build on the parts of science he tries to undermine.  He treats as true what he just calls subjective.

[Captain Utopia]

1) One of the goals of physics, since special relativity at least, was ways to remove the observer from the equations.  This has been more or less successful.
2) See above.
3) False.  Misunderstanding of Heisenberg.
4) See above.
5) False.  Recursive Solipsism.
6) This is the "tree falling in the woods" argument.
7) Time is a dimension; a vector. It absolutely has an independent "reality".


The whole thing smells like a philosophy 101 riddle: If we only see the universe as an interaction of our senses, then without our senses, we have no way of proving the universe exists; therefore, our senses literally create the universe.

The equations work whether or not we are there to observe them. 

Perhaps this is a question for which I won't understand the answer, but how do you remove the observer from the equations? Is an observer always a human, or just anything which will react in measurably different ways dependent upon the input? Has "many-worlds" been discredited? If not, does it make sense to visualise it as a tree of probabilities, with some branches merging as wavefunctions collapse?

Actually, if there aren't short answers to these questions then don't worry - I should probably dig back into that book/paper you sent me a few months ago for a better background knowledge.

[Template]

Since many-worlds is an interpretation of a model...
It's nonsense to treat it as fact outside of a thought experiment.

Especially as 'observer' swiftly becomes ill-defined.  Dr. Bastard MD seems to define "observer" as a "conscious animal" without noticing that soliplism really undermines our concept of "animal" as something real.

It's like provincialism, where the wall is his skin.  And he has the gall to call the border every human's skin.  Humans separated by space and time.

The fact that we aren't always thinking each others' thoughts, or even that we can have two thoughts in our own minds, indicates the existence of some form of "space-time", though it could be as simple as indexing, like a file system.

BTW, as I understand, holgraphic universe models just say that the really-real space isn't put together like a map or a cube or other way we draw space.

[Template]

I'd been avoiding reading the actual article.

This guy seems to have his layers all messed up.

The "20-watts of energy" bit could almost be fun, in the right hands.  His are not those.  How much physics does the man know?  No idea.  He got an MD after a BA in I-don't-know-what, with his science knowledge presumably centered on squishy things.

Maybe the medium of the blog makes him worse than he'd be otherwise, but full pictures of him are a bit ridiculous....

[Haeresis Zarathustra]

But, this may lean towards more than the 4 obvious dimensions, if not an 'infinite multiverse'.

You seem to be conflating "dimensions" with "universes". Our universe has something up to 27 dimensions (I think, that number may be wrong) in theory, including the 4 dimensions we perceive. Any other universes as in Many-Worlds would presumably have these same dimensions.

[Cain]

Forget the barstool, this guy keeps trying to build on the parts of science he tries to undermine.  He treats as true what he just calls subjective.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion and stuff, man.

[Template]

Forget the barstool, this guy keeps trying to build on the parts of science he tries to undermine.  He treats as true what he just calls subjective.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion and stuff, man.

It's like a hammer made of nails.

Wish I had one of those, now...