Quote from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.htmlOne well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). A new scientific theory - called biocentrism - refines these ideas. There are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?
And from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism):
Lanza's theory of biocentrism has seven principles:
- 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.
- Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
- 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.
- Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
- 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.
- Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
- 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.
The problem I have is that although my bullshit detector is going off like crazy, parts of it make sense to me. So I'm posting this in the hope that someone can pick it apart and rid me of my delusions.
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.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 05:56:36 PM
The equations work whether or not we are there to observe them.
E-Prime: I think you are riding a motorcylce which closely matches my experiences.
R-Prime: That is the correct Motorcycle to shove up HuffPo's collective assholes! YARGANARGANARGANARG! *
How did I do?
*edited to add, per LMNO's sage advice.
Needs more YARGANARGANARGANARG.
I thought biocentrism was a perspective in environmental ethics...as say, opposed to anthropocentrism and zoocentrism.
#5 appears to be creationist-esque "logic". The universe seems perfect for life, so God/"Consciousness" must have made it. Except it's actually the other way around; life adapts to its environment as anyone who's read about natural selection in high school biology should know.
Quote from: Haeresis Zarathustra on December 09, 2009, 11:53:09 PM
#5 appears to be creationist-esque "logic". The universe seems perfect for life, so God/"Consciousness" must have made it. Except it's actually the other way around; life adapts to its environment as anyone who's read about natural selection in high school biology should know.
The universe isn't particularly good for life, but this particular planet seems to be.
Also, it's a mutual thing: organisms shape the environment and environment shapes the organisms.
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
The universe isn't particularly good for life, but this particular planet seems to be.
That's a really good point. If the Universe were good for life, we'd see more of it elsewhere, yeah?
Quote from: Kai on December 09, 2009, 10:32:51 PM
I thought biocentrism was a perspective in environmental ethics...as say, opposed to anthropocentrism and zoocentrism.
This was what I learned in my Env. Policy courses back in the mid 90's. But I suppose, that WAS the mid 90's.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 03:54:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
The universe isn't particularly good for life, but this particular planet seems to be.
That's a really good point. If the Universe were good for life, we'd see more of it elsewhere, yeah?
I don't know, except the whole vast voids of near 0 K spaced between huge spheres of millions of degree gasses shaping spacetime, tearing nearby objects apart with tidal forces and sending out xrays doesn't seem very good for life to me. Between the vacuum and the unstable environment close to stellar and other large objects, there seems to be only a narrow temporal-spacial range in which systems beyond physics and chemistry can come about.
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 04:42:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 03:54:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
The universe isn't particularly good for life, but this particular planet seems to be.
That's a really good point. If the Universe were good for life, we'd see more of it elsewhere, yeah?
I don't know, except the whole vast voids of near 0 K spaced between huge spheres of millions of degree gasses shaping spacetime, tearing nearby objects apart with tidal forces and sending out xrays doesn't seem very good for life to me. Between the vacuum and the unstable environment close to stellar and other large objects, there seems to be only a narrow temporal-spacial range in which systems beyond physics and chemistry can come about.
I don't see that vacuum necessarily precludes life. Not total vacuum, of course, but there's plenty of dust clouds, etc, out there, close enough to stars.
Also, there's no reason to believe that the universe isn't teeming with life. It would just be life that doesn't use radio.
Then there is no hope of finding intelligent life in the Universe.
Because once they invent radio, they will have talk radio...and no longer be intelligent.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2009, 04:50:06 PM
Then there is no hope of finding intelligent life in the Universe.
Because once they invent radio, they will have talk radio...and no longer be intelligent.
This.
Though I suspect there is plenty of life in the universe, I suspect 99.999999999% of it would never get beyond the lichen/fungus stage.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 10, 2009, 04:54:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2009, 04:50:06 PM
Then there is no hope of finding intelligent life in the Universe.
Because once they invent radio, they will have talk radio...and no longer be intelligent.
This.
Though I suspect there is plenty of life in the universe, I suspect 99.999999999% of it would never get beyond the lichen/fungus stage.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 10, 2009, 04:46:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 04:42:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2009, 03:54:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on December 10, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
The universe isn't particularly good for life, but this particular planet seems to be.
That's a really good point. If the Universe were good for life, we'd see more of it elsewhere, yeah?
I don't know, except the whole vast voids of near 0 K spaced between huge spheres of millions of degree gasses shaping spacetime, tearing nearby objects apart with tidal forces and sending out xrays doesn't seem very good for life to me. Between the vacuum and the unstable environment close to stellar and other large objects, there seems to be only a narrow temporal-spacial range in which systems beyond physics and chemistry can come about.
I don't see that vacuum necessarily precludes life. Not total vacuum, of course, but there's plenty of dust clouds, etc, out there, close enough to stars.
Also, there's no reason to believe that the universe isn't teeming with life. It would just be life that doesn't use radio.
Its not so much airlessness as the low density of molecules and the near absolute zero temperatures. It's very difficult to get complex chemical networks going in that sort of environment.
Quote from: FP on December 09, 2009, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.htmlOne well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). A new scientific theory - called biocentrism - refines these ideas. There are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?
And from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism):
Lanza's theory of biocentrism has seven principles:
- 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.
- Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
- 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.
- Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
- 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.
- Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
- 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.
The problem I have is that although my bullshit detector is going off like crazy, parts of it make sense to me. So I'm posting this in the hope that someone can pick it apart and rid me of my delusions.
What LMNO said. Basically, you don't need an observer to collapse a wavefunction.
The rest of the reasoning has a lot of the same problems as the metaphysical bullshit that
was is pervasive
until we had a better understanding how how a physical universe might function and apparently won't go away.
So if the "universe" is just a mental construct of the mind, how can the mind affect it? I can control the positions of my limbs, to an extent, but I can't directly control the position of the limbs of another humanoid. And how can the universe affect my mind - how could pressure to what appear to be arteries affect the rate at which I think? How could ADD medications cause thoughts to focus? If two minds exist, how would they perceive similar universes?
GTG, more later, maybe
Basically,
:barstool:
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.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2009, 05:56:36 PM
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.
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.
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....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Robert_Lanza_in_laboratory.JPG/225px-Robert_Lanza_in_laboratory.JPG)
Quote from: Hangshai on December 12, 2009, 07:32:49 AM
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.
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 11, 2009, 08:18:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on December 13, 2009, 03:10:05 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on December 11, 2009, 08:18:00 PM
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...