Entropymancer- yes I thought it wasn't resolved too. Yet he states his take on the experiment as fact, as he does with other things.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself
- Thread starter Saidin
- Start date
Ok here it goes...
I say this just to make a point. Whenever someone starts off talking like this they the skeptic bells should immediately start going off. No one is anywhere close to having a theory of everything. It might not even ever be possible. However writing articles and trying to solve problems towards a theory of everything is acceptable but this is clearly phrased to claim their theory solves it. In this case biocentrism which is not even a real theory accepted by modern science. Its not a theory like evolution is a theory its a hypothesis there is a difference and its important to keep in mind that difference.
This is a common tactic of people who are perpetuating this myth. They cling onto an area where science is still confused and that can still be linked to their spiritual beliefs and right now that area is consciousness. Again skeptic bells ring ring. Also another key point is that these people always ignore of find some way of attempting to confuse their audience about modern neuroscience and cognitive psychology and what its learning about consciousness.
These philosophers are not necessarily correct in their speculations about consciousness. Many have come up with good ideas and many have laid foundations for future philosophizing and scientific discovery. But they are not the be all end all of philosophy and especially not of consciousness. They have also been wrong in some areas but I don't want to get into that. The point is the author is clearly trying to make it seem like he is quoting THE ONLY authorities who will later confirm his "theories".
The author is doing another classic tactic. Link together a string of ideas about the universe and show that science just keeps disproving the old crap and making up new crap. Its the classic the earth was flat now its round idea. The point of science however is that sometimes you discover things that you can't just reverse because well the earth is round and no one will ever show otherwise.
Discovering newer better ideas and discounting old ones is part of science but there are fundamental reasons why the ether was wrong and why relativity is correct both experimentally and theoretically. Relativity describes a particular aspect of reality (space time gravity etc) accurately and it will always do so even if deeper theories and understanding of the universe is discovered. The same goes for quantum mechanics and newtonian physics. They are all valid theories that describe different aspects of the world (small medium and large etc) to varying degrees of accuracy.
The author also fails to point out that string theory is only math there is no experimental evidence for it so it shouldn't really be compared with relativity for which there is a ton of experimental confirmation.
This is the essential myth he is now going to attempt to provide evidence for. This is where it gets exciting the first part is just to make his case that modern science is on the wrong track.
Actually the laws of physics are naturally occurring because of the conservation principles implied by Noether's theorem and symmetry principles. If you want to learn about this read the following:
Furthermore modern cosmology has come up with ideas as to why the fundamental forces have the strengths they do and why we live in a universe where they permit life. The inflationary model of the universe allows the possibility that there are other universes in which the fundamental forces could have been different where never could form atoms and ones that collapsed. Look up big bang inflationary universe to learn more. Also string theory has ideas about how this happens as well.
This is absolute bullshit. Nothing about quantum mechanics implies that consciousness has any role. This is a myth!
Anyway the next like 10 or so paragraphs are him just connecting claim after claim but providing no evidence or coherent explanations for his biocentric theory...
He raves on about time for a while...
Actually thats 13.7 billion years old for the universe and ~4 billion for earth.
WRONG WRONG WRONG! This is a total lie. It doesn't even make sense.
Now he is taking phycisists words out of context. Feynman would have said to this author "shut up and calculate". Weinberg is a theoretical physicist who understands quantum mechanics, relativity and newtonian physics. There is a reason he doesn't want to bring people into it ---> BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEED TOO!
More misinformation. Observer is anything interacting with the system. You cant observe a system without using something to observe it and thus altering it. No one sais the observer needs to be a conscious life form.
Then he goes onto describe waveparticle duality and quantum entanglement concepts which he clearly doesn't know dick about.
Anyway I've had enough. This guy is just repeating the EXACT same BULLSHIT that people have been repeating since the 70's trying to get twist around physics and biology to show that consciousness is the origin of everything.
Its complete utter nonsense.
I say this just to make a point. Whenever someone starts off talking like this they the skeptic bells should immediately start going off. No one is anywhere close to having a theory of everything. It might not even ever be possible. However writing articles and trying to solve problems towards a theory of everything is acceptable but this is clearly phrased to claim their theory solves it. In this case biocentrism which is not even a real theory accepted by modern science. Its not a theory like evolution is a theory its a hypothesis there is a difference and its important to keep in mind that difference.
This is a common tactic of people who are perpetuating this myth. They cling onto an area where science is still confused and that can still be linked to their spiritual beliefs and right now that area is consciousness. Again skeptic bells ring ring. Also another key point is that these people always ignore of find some way of attempting to confuse their audience about modern neuroscience and cognitive psychology and what its learning about consciousness.
These philosophers are not necessarily correct in their speculations about consciousness. Many have come up with good ideas and many have laid foundations for future philosophizing and scientific discovery. But they are not the be all end all of philosophy and especially not of consciousness. They have also been wrong in some areas but I don't want to get into that. The point is the author is clearly trying to make it seem like he is quoting THE ONLY authorities who will later confirm his "theories".
The author is doing another classic tactic. Link together a string of ideas about the universe and show that science just keeps disproving the old crap and making up new crap. Its the classic the earth was flat now its round idea. The point of science however is that sometimes you discover things that you can't just reverse because well the earth is round and no one will ever show otherwise.
Discovering newer better ideas and discounting old ones is part of science but there are fundamental reasons why the ether was wrong and why relativity is correct both experimentally and theoretically. Relativity describes a particular aspect of reality (space time gravity etc) accurately and it will always do so even if deeper theories and understanding of the universe is discovered. The same goes for quantum mechanics and newtonian physics. They are all valid theories that describe different aspects of the world (small medium and large etc) to varying degrees of accuracy.
The author also fails to point out that string theory is only math there is no experimental evidence for it so it shouldn't really be compared with relativity for which there is a ton of experimental confirmation.
This is the essential myth he is now going to attempt to provide evidence for. This is where it gets exciting the first part is just to make his case that modern science is on the wrong track.
Actually the laws of physics are naturally occurring because of the conservation principles implied by Noether's theorem and symmetry principles. If you want to learn about this read the following:
Furthermore modern cosmology has come up with ideas as to why the fundamental forces have the strengths they do and why we live in a universe where they permit life. The inflationary model of the universe allows the possibility that there are other universes in which the fundamental forces could have been different where never could form atoms and ones that collapsed. Look up big bang inflationary universe to learn more. Also string theory has ideas about how this happens as well.
This is absolute bullshit. Nothing about quantum mechanics implies that consciousness has any role. This is a myth!
Anyway the next like 10 or so paragraphs are him just connecting claim after claim but providing no evidence or coherent explanations for his biocentric theory...
He raves on about time for a while...
Actually thats 13.7 billion years old for the universe and ~4 billion for earth.
WRONG WRONG WRONG! This is a total lie. It doesn't even make sense.
Now he is taking phycisists words out of context. Feynman would have said to this author "shut up and calculate". Weinberg is a theoretical physicist who understands quantum mechanics, relativity and newtonian physics. There is a reason he doesn't want to bring people into it ---> BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEED TOO!
More misinformation. Observer is anything interacting with the system. You cant observe a system without using something to observe it and thus altering it. No one sais the observer needs to be a conscious life form.
Then he goes onto describe waveparticle duality and quantum entanglement concepts which he clearly doesn't know dick about.
Anyway I've had enough. This guy is just repeating the EXACT same BULLSHIT that people have been repeating since the 70's trying to get twist around physics and biology to show that consciousness is the origin of everything.
Its complete utter nonsense.
burnt said:
Hey Burnt
He is making an interpretation of the evidence and coming to a conclusion about which science has no answer. To quote from your above referenced article (a bit dated by the way...)
He is making a case for filling that gap in knowledge. Many have made a similar case, and those interpretations based on science and observation just so happen to fit nicely with eastern philosophical thought that has been around for thousands of years.
The arguments or evidence don't require it, they point toward it as a shift in understanding of our selves.
Saidin, do you understand the implications of that assertion? If a conscious observer influences the collapse of a wave equation, that means that a subsequent observer CANNOT influence the collapse in the same way... so then you're actually asserting that consciousness sometimes has an influence and is sometimes prevented from having an influence by the circumstance of timing.
Besides that, consciousness influencing the collapse of the wave equation is a testable hypothesis... and yet not a shred of evidence supports it... That either means the hypothesis is false, or the people who believe in it are so lazy (or have so little confidence in it) that they won't put their hypotheses to the test.
Besides that, consciousness influencing the collapse of the wave equation is a testable hypothesis... and yet not a shred of evidence supports it... That either means the hypothesis is false, or the people who believe in it are so lazy (or have so little confidence in it) that they won't put their hypotheses to the test.
Saidin the wavefunction is a mathematical abstraction used to describe the probability of quantum states. Its not even a real thing its a complex function. Thats one major reason why all these theories are nonsensical.
You can do the same kinds of quantum mechanical math by using Heisenburgs matrix mechanics and Paul Diracs formulisms which represent quantum states as vectors in abstract multidimensional space. No one even uses Shrodingers wave mechanics and wave function is a bad name as we know now that were thought of as waves in the past are really just ensembles of particles.
You can do the same kinds of quantum mechanical math by using Heisenburgs matrix mechanics and Paul Diracs formulisms which represent quantum states as vectors in abstract multidimensional space. No one even uses Shrodingers wave mechanics and wave function is a bad name as we know now that were thought of as waves in the past are really just ensembles of particles.
Entropymancer said:
So it would not be possible for collapsed wave functions to overlap, merge, synchronize? No two functions can be identical anyway, as every persons experience of a moment is unique. No two people are going to interprect the same moment in exactly the same way, but there may be similarities which can overlap.
Thats the point of this, each wave function collapse is unique to our individual consciousness, but that does not mean that there cannot be commonality between consciousness which is what we in turn call the "Objective" world.
There is no concensus on the interpretation, so to say that one interpretation is, "Complete utter nonsense" or "Absolute Bullshit" is being disingenious. No theory has primacy. Some ignore it, others don't require it, others absolutely require it:
The existence of the wave function collapse is required in:
-the Copenhagen interpretation
-the objective collapse interpretations
-the so-called transactional interpretation
-in a "spiritual interpretation" in which consciousness causes collapse.
On the other hand, the collapse is considered as a redundant or optional approximation in:
-interpretations based on Consistent Histories
-the Many-Worlds Interpretation
-the Bohm interpretation
-the Ensemble Interpretation
Wave function collapse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wave function collapse - Wikipedia
The observer is essential to this phenomenon which is where the quantum consciousness interprecation comes from. These interpretations just so happen to be as valid as any other interpretation currently out there. The consciousness interpretation fits prefectly with thousands of years of eastern philosophical thought and experimentation. The concept of Maya, that the world is nothing but illusion created by our consciousness which has become entangled in the physical and the mental. There is a cohesive whole of perspective you get which is lacking elsewhere.
I am open to any evidence for better understanding. But all I have seen or read in argument against says nothing more than that the consciuosness interpretation is wrong, without providing any proof as to its fallacy, by either disproving tenents, or by showing one interpretation to have PROOF that negates others.
Saidin, you seem to have some fudamental misunderstandings of the quantum model. I recommend watching Richard Feynmans 1979 lectures on quantum electrodynamics (that's where burnt got the quote about light being particles; you can find th lectures on Google video)
My point about observer influence preventing observer influence is that the model is probabilistic. If an observer can cause a wavefunction to resolve to a particular eigenvalue at given point, this fundamentally alters the probability density. If multiple observers successively determine the outcome in the same way, that fundamentally violates the model.
Also, it sounds like you're confusing conscious observation with the quantum mechanical observer (the latter simply being any bit of interacting matter or energy, or any other thing that may as a consequence contain information about specific state- or path-information). If the observer is having a conscious influence in the manner you describe, then we ought to be finding personality and subjective preference in atomic particles... maybe they could start signing up for Facebook and Twitter :lol:
My point about observer influence preventing observer influence is that the model is probabilistic. If an observer can cause a wavefunction to resolve to a particular eigenvalue at given point, this fundamentally alters the probability density. If multiple observers successively determine the outcome in the same way, that fundamentally violates the model.
Also, it sounds like you're confusing conscious observation with the quantum mechanical observer (the latter simply being any bit of interacting matter or energy, or any other thing that may as a consequence contain information about specific state- or path-information). If the observer is having a conscious influence in the manner you describe, then we ought to be finding personality and subjective preference in atomic particles... maybe they could start signing up for Facebook and Twitter :lol:
Nothing is wrong with the double split experiment. However there have been far more advanced double split experiments since the time of Thomas young which give results that clearly show photons and electrons are particles and the wave particle duality is somewhat of a misnomer. However those particles don't behave like ping pong balls. There "wavy" particles.
If you setup a double split experiment the only difference being you have a very sensitive photograph plate and you fire one photon or electron at a time. You will get a picture that looks like this:
File:Double-slit experiment results Tanamura 2.jpg - Wikipedia
The wave pattern is an accumulation of particles hitting the plate. Which is still bizarre because it demonstrates that a single particle in a sense interferes with itself is in more place at once at the same time etc. This makes it impossible to describe quantum phenomenon classically hence the use of wave function and related mathematical tools.
Wavefunctions collapse when they are observed however its important to remember that the wave function isn't really a thing its a mathematical tool to describe something that is inherently probabalistic. They have done double split type experiments with atoms as the "observers".
The reason the observer doesn't imply consciousness is because the universe existed before living conscious entities existed. Its not the other way around and if you think it is you can't just rely on "well which interpretation is it". You need evidence for it. Saying that consciousness causes wave functions to collapse would need to be explained how it happens, what is consciousness and its properties. You can't just say its this "unified field" thats not a description of anything.
Watch the video entromancer recomends by Feynman. He explains it very well without using heavy math. Although you should watch all 4 parts.
Of course the article was just a theory, like any philosophy for that matter. The author does seem to push forward his ideas and really hit on other ideas by others, which is arrogant. Guess he is just selling his ideas. But in my opinion the theory itself does fit the picture and is not at all in conflict with science.
What’s the problem with different realities? Simply put, you can’t know absolute truth (the thing in itself, ding an sich, objective reality), therefore you create a reality. For as far as we agree on reality, we call it consensus reality. So yea, in this way we create the universe, choose a universe.
The universe seems ideal and created as in intelligent design, but this seems logic since a reality is always an abstraction. What’s the use of abstracting if it isn’t useful for me to survive? Of course my normal everyday consciousness will provide me and us alike, a useful ‘cohesive’ reality.
To my understanding you can’t put consciousness out of the equation. However you measure, whatever instrument you use on whatever level (classic-quantum), your conscious mind is doing the measuring. Your conscious mind is the observer. I think therefore I am conscious?
This consensus reality, this universe we speak of and see every day and through our telescopes, it is the product of our mind. We humans (genome based animals lol) do not see the complete picture, so it is obvious that we filter and abstract information. So we create a reality. It is as simple as that. And certainly not new.
So far haven’t seen any good arguments that go against what is brought forward in the article. The underlying Kantian ideas about subjective reality are solid logic.
What’s the problem with different realities? Simply put, you can’t know absolute truth (the thing in itself, ding an sich, objective reality), therefore you create a reality. For as far as we agree on reality, we call it consensus reality. So yea, in this way we create the universe, choose a universe.
The universe seems ideal and created as in intelligent design, but this seems logic since a reality is always an abstraction. What’s the use of abstracting if it isn’t useful for me to survive? Of course my normal everyday consciousness will provide me and us alike, a useful ‘cohesive’ reality.
To my understanding you can’t put consciousness out of the equation. However you measure, whatever instrument you use on whatever level (classic-quantum), your conscious mind is doing the measuring. Your conscious mind is the observer. I think therefore I am conscious?
This consensus reality, this universe we speak of and see every day and through our telescopes, it is the product of our mind. We humans (genome based animals lol) do not see the complete picture, so it is obvious that we filter and abstract information. So we create a reality. It is as simple as that. And certainly not new.
So far haven’t seen any good arguments that go against what is brought forward in the article. The underlying Kantian ideas about subjective reality are solid logic.
Blundering_Novice
Rising Star
burnt said:
Nothing he discusses has been fundamentally contradicted by any recent research. Quantum electrodynamics is very robust and the focus of the lectures. Since this lecture quarks which are mentioned have been discovered the standard model put together. But all built on the foundations of quantum mechanics and particle physics.
Also I never said the double slit experiment is outdated. Some of its earliest interpretations are I won't say outdated but are now more sophisticated.
No. You can't just claim that because you can't fundamentally know objective reality that implies we create a reality outside our heads. We create a subjective interpretation of reality inside our minds. But you can't claim from this that you "choose a universe" or that consensus reality is a valid concept.
Furthermore why would any expect that humans beings which evolved by natural selection would have any reason to develop minds capable of percieving aspects of reality not useful for survival? Thats why we don't see radiowaves for example. Yet they are part of objective reality as are the photons they are made of. We can never know what radiowaves feel like consciouslessly yet we know they exist.
That doesn't make any sense. The universe doesn't seem ideal and created as in intelligent design. Where did you get that from? Evolution by natural selection and the development of complexity and matter explains life. No one subconsciously agrees that the moon exists. That's an absurd notion with no evidence or reason to suggest its true.
No it isn't. Its just looking at the final result that could have happened the day before in the laboratory.
Again you falsely assume that because our brain creates a subjective experience in our minds about the world around us that we create reality.
burnt said:
You cannot prove this statement, so it cannot be the basis for an argument.
If the universe came into being from consciousness, then it would have been conscious at and prior to the "beginning" if there is any such thing. You are a part, and you are the whole.
A unified field of probabilities in potentitation of infinite manifestation.
burnt said:
Evolution by natural selection does not explain life. It provides a theoretical framework whereby living organizims can change over time in order to better adapt to the envionment. It explains the ACTIONS of life in relation to external stimulii, but says nothing about the CAUSE of life.
We do create reality subjectively, it is the only true perspective we can have, as you cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt anything outside your own personal experience. What you call "falsely assuming" I call a lack of understanding. This world view incorporates yours, it is just a wider perspective taking into account more of what we experience as life, rather than simply relying on equations.
Its all relative...
So all the evidence that suggests that consciousness is the result of our brain activity and that the earth is like 4 billion years older and the universe much older are not evidence upon which a basis for an argument can be built?
How can the universe be conscious? What suggests the universe is conscious. To me is seems quite the opposite except when I'm on shit loads of acid
:twisted: . Life doesn't need a deeper cause. It happened because it could happen chemically.
Sure but there is a reality outside your in the head experience. Doesn't matter whether our minds picture is accurate or not.
I don't really find your world view explanatory. It doesn't explain what consciousness is, how it interacts with matter, how it creates the universe none of these things. It doesn't offer any explanations how living organisms function nothing about chemistry nor physics. It doesn't seem to explain anything nor have any evidence so why believe it?
burnt said:
If this had been the basis for your argument, then we could go somewhere. But to state difinitively something you cannot possibly know sort of ends the debate before it begins. Does brain activity cause consciousness, or does consciousness cause brain activity? What about organisims which dont have a brain, but are nonetheless conscious?
If the universe came into being from consciousness, then it would have been conscious at and prior to the "beginning" if there is any such thing. You are a part, and you are the whole.
How can the universe be conscious? What suggests the universe is conscious. To me is seems quite the opposite except when I'm on shit loads of acid
You are the universe aware of itself. You being alive and conscious is all the proof you need. By your own admission you have seen and touched it, but you don't yet understand. Lots of acid will get you there, as will pretty much any psychedelic. Deep meditation can take you there. Fasting can take you there. If the universe isn't conscious, then why is it whenever we change our own consciousness to gain a wider perspective, we connect with this universal consciousness that apparently underlies everything? Everyone searching for this finds the same thing. Those who run across it by accident find the same thing. It even strikes those unaware out of the blue.
True, it doesn't need it. But to say it happened because it could happen is a pretty flimsy argument, especially when you take into consideration the enormous odds against such a thing happening in the first place. If there is a chemical formula for life, why haven't we been able to replicate it in the labratory?
You have said there is a reality outside your own head over and over again in many of these threads, but as of yet have failed to include one piece of proof. Our minds picture is most certainly inaccurate, as it is a filter for the sensory data surrounding us. It creates a picture of reality that is inherently untrue because we are only aware of a limited amount of data available to us consciously. Our world is limited by our subjective perceptions, so the objective world cannot truly exist because it morphs and changes dependent upon the perspective.
It explains everything. There is plenty of evidence, but it comes from sources you distrust or have not looked into. There have been experiments done for thousands of years which have all confirmed the same thing. You in fact can perform the experiment yourself if you so choose. All it takes is meditation.
Matter is conscious. If the universe is consciuos, then every single thing in it is also conscious, from the scale of the atom, all the way up to galaxies. The universe doesn't need to be created, it can have existed forever. Evolution is how living organisims function. Chemistry describes chemistry, physics describes physics. These are the frameworks by which consciousness experiences the world around it. The universe was made for life, to grow, learn, expand, evolve...to become increasingly more aware of itself.
Organisms without nervous systems are not conscious like organisms with nervous systems are. Bacteria are not conscious.
What matters is how we interpret our experience. My interpretation is that the part of my brain that is involved in my sense of self works differently in these states. Therefore I feel unified with everything although clearly I am not. Evidence for such mechanisms exists. Evidence that the universe is aware of itself does not exist.
IF you want to discuss such things you need to understand biochemistry. I am not going to bother answering this. Explanations and theories about the origin of life are easily available to read and none involve intelligent universes or gods.
The fact that you have a head is proof their is a reality outside it. I don't see how it can be any other way. I feel the above statement is self contradicting and don't want to discuss it again.
Rock's aren't conscious. What makes you think rocks are conscious? If the universe was made for life why is it so empty? Your statements wring together poetically sounding scientific concepts but at their heart don't describe anything.
If we can't move past this then there is no point in discussing further.
ismokecrystals
Rising Star
What makes you think that rocks are not conscious? Because they don't move? They have no legs nor arms.
We are the most conscious because we are the most complex. As things become more complex, they have a higher degree of consciousness. I can't explain how I know this nor car I properly explain it but I know it and I believe it wholeheartedly. I just hope I can learn more so that I can understand this better.
We are the most conscious because we are the most complex. As things become more complex, they have a higher degree of consciousness. I can't explain how I know this nor car I properly explain it but I know it and I believe it wholeheartedly. I just hope I can learn more so that I can understand this better.
It is not a bad thing that we project that what is us, onto whatever we experience. As long as we know we do that. And know that we can’t do anything without doing that. You are now part of the deal. Solipsism is not a dead end. On the contrary, it is a good axiom to build on. Realizing the boundaries of personal perception does not make reality less real or significant. Instead it puts you in middle. You are all over it. You have to give meaning to life by figuring how to deal with this subjective reality. What a responsibility…