Scary stuff. Terrifying if you add the potential of yourself being in control of all humans and their realities. Or even worse, another being with perceptual control.

If the universe is infinitely complex, I’m confident we’ll never achieve a “theory of everything”, but I agree that our present view of reality is pretty obsolete, not just for science, but also for us laymen. I’m not sure how many of us are capable of the leap you are suggesting. Perhaps a new understanding will have to occur in tiny incremental insights. For me it is an achievement just to acknowledge that the universe does not consist of life and inert matter, that creative intelligence is an aspect of all life and the universe itself is alive.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

http://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=69391

Ever consider that there probably is a creator and our consciousnesses are just tiny fragments of his?

I think that although we may know how parts of it work,we may even get a glimpse of how it's entirety works ,but why we will never know

if existence is infinitely complex then you need an infinite mind to comprehend it

the meaning of life is an eternal mystery,and i think that the point of it actually lies in it's mysterious nature,for if life would find it's very meaning,completing itself,it would lose it's mystery and cease to create beauty,lose it's creative aspect and cease to exist

it's like a never ending story,a never ending quest for perfection

that's how i see it

Creation of universe is the first intelligent question mankind has ever asked. Even the most ancient sources of knowledge like Vedas and Bhagwat Gita have dwelled on this question. First these scriptures declare: "Yatha brahmande tatha pinde and yatha pinde tath brahmande" meaning "Like univiverse like body and like body like unvivese". Which means body of living-beings and composition of universe is same (matter & energy). Second declaration these scriptures make is that universe was created instantaneously from "Maha-shunya" or "smallest-nothing" in God's naval,like an opening lotus flower (means universe is always expanding). Bhagwat Gita demonstrates to select enightened persons (like scientists who devise the required wherewithal to make minute & rare observations) the whole universe lies in God's form-Vishnu's abdomen. Baby Krishna also demonstrated the same to His mother Yashodha by opening His mouth. One limitation with material science is that it cannot prove the existence of property-less soul, which is considered by the ancient wisdom as the cause of creation. That is why, man considers himself to be different from other living-beings on this earth. Whereas, the ancient wisdom declares, that the same soul/atma expresses itself in diverse properties of matter-energy assmblies of 8.4 million living species. For material scientists to understand this discrepency, another quantum leap is yet required to be made with saints and scientists holding joint conferences and workshops and working with one-another's tools. Provided all the weapons of destruction the material scientists have made in fear of fellow-men do not explode first.

Biocentrism is a fascinating concept, but why does the idea that God designed the universe to contain life explain nothing? Perhaps it explains everything: not only how we got here, but WHY we are here. It is amazing in light of all of the parameters that have to be "just right" for life to exist that the possibility of a Supreme Being creating a universe designed for life is so easily glossed over as "explaining nothing." We prefer to believe that we are the ones that do the creating. Perhaps we think we are enlightened in taking such a view, but it is very possible that such a view is the most unenlightened of all. God may well be quite amused at such presumption by His creation.

sometimes I get a glimpse of the way ideas enter my mind and consciousness that I then intuit is the same creative process for all energy. It's like there are points of white light on the waves of energy that become my ideas that exist on my magnetic field of consciousness. That's how I am beginning to perceive my own inner reality. --- this is just a beginning---

I've never believed that that Big Bang could be true. This theory leaves out the fundamental question which is-what was there before the Big Bang? The answer can't be nothing. Nothingness is an impossibility. I still can't understand consciousness, unless it is what lies behind and drives all phenomena. It seems to me that life is consciousness and everything, yes, everything is alive and conscious. Why can't that be true? To me there is no need for an external god who creates the universe. The universe is timeless - it has no beginning and no end.

The other day I heard someone proclaim that perhaps the universe is not expanding after all. That space is not expanding so the observed red-shift is due to the expansion of time. I found this an interesting idea since space-time has 2 components. One that has been proved to be relative (time) by Einstein and the other, space, has not been proved to stretch out. For all of the physics that has been done for the past 150 years, we only have been able to define about 5% of the universe with dark matter and dark energy accounting for the rest - clearly unknowns that make string theory equations work out.

Well, what if the big bang was really just the starting of the universal time clock?

Fascinating.

I like the term biocentrism. I'm not sure I'll ever comprehend all the scientific concepts. For me, as a layman, it is enough to believe the universe is alive and growing, in the same way organsms here on earth grow -- in rational, creative, purposeful response to enviornmental pressures.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

So what I'm getting out of all of this is basicly our minds create our reallity? When I look at a table there is no table, only atoms/energy which my mind then constructs into an easy to understand object. So your mind creates and stores images and just plays them over and over for you on a loop so that you have some sense of a physical reallity?

 "It is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgment." Hebrews 9:27

(That's all the "proof" I need!)

 

This article goes a long way towards disparaging Science only to then make allegations regarding Mystical Quantum effects and Consciousness.

This seems intended to herd the (uneducated and unaware) reader to believe that some kind of "revolution" is taking place in science. This is not true.

Biocentrism is nothing but "the new nonsense" designed to sway people into believing in god or to not abandon religious belief.

There is AMPLE evidence that Consciousness arises from the biological function of the Brain. Brain Death, Dementia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, et al are not imaginary conditions are they?

You need not be a Scientist to know this, all you have to do is work in nursing home to know that Consciousness is but a biological function.

Biocentrism, if it is to be a Science must provide testable explanations of reality and make useful predictions, otherwise its not science it is Theology.

That Science hasn't "explained" consciousness isn't grounds for dismissing Science, which is the basis for the Technological betterment of Society. You mustn't forget that Humans today enjoy access to knowledge, education, and a lifestyle that was limited to the domain of royalty in the past. Also, modern science and cosmology, which is so brutally assaulted in this pathetic pedagogic article, is less than 200 years old and is continually hampered by religious tampering.

Yet we continue to make progress, in ten years, Cosmology and Physics will still be around and Biocentrism will be long forgotten after a quick trip to the bargain bin.

This Quantum-Mystical hogwash is the New Creationism, has been labeled "Biocentrism"

It relies heavily on befuddling people with the long debunked "Goldilocks Principle ie Just-Right" aka the "Anthropic Principle."

It also relies heavily on some quotes from Heisenberg regarding well-understood Quantum phenomena related to electrical measurement apparatus and its influence on electrons. The same is true for photons in optical experiments.

But to be befuddled you must be lacking a basic understanding of Science and in particular Quantum Mechanics. This would include 99% of the American Population which has been duped by an Educational System that has been under siege by the Christian Right for forty years (how biblically appropriate).

Creationism now wants to seize on the quite small "holes" in our Scientific knowledge so that it may assert that since modern Science has not been able to answer certain questions that there must be some undetected reality, this is designed to lend credence to the Theological argument of Creationism.

Well, Biocentrism is having its Fifteen Minutes, there is no such revolution taking place in Science, Biocentrism isn't even on the radar.

Don't buy it, wait for it in the Bargain Bin next week.

 

Just my notes and thoughts while reading this. By the way for my fellow readers this is a crazy fad theory that we be around for a few years and die.

The standard model has NEVER been proven wrong. It is the most scientifically accurate theory EVER created.
Consciousness is NOT the realm of physics. Physics has never claimed to solve these problems. Trying to do that would be the same as trying to build a skyscraper molecule by molecule--It's theoretically possible but practically impossible. Also computer scientists have successfully simulated a cat's brain before using a supercomputer.
200 physical parameters? Maybe including the solar system, but you can pretty much discount that on a count of statistics. I mean there have to be trillions upon trillions of solar systems out there. ONE of them is bound to have life. Btw there are only 23 unexplainable constants.
No physicist believes a true Theory of Everything is just around the corner. Most believe we'll never truly know and some don't think we're even capable of it.
Yes observation affects the universe but that's because when you observe something you have to shoot a particle at it. When the particle hits it, the particle changes it.
You oversimplified the double-slit experiment to an alarming degree. And obviously didn't do your homework because experiments have been done where the slit the photon went through was known and an interference pattern was still created.
You vastly overstate the number of problems in today's theories. Excluding things like black holes and the big bang, there are at most a dozen really befuddling problems in particle physics. It's not perfect but it's pretty darn close.
While yes photons don't have a "color" so to speak they DO have a wavelength which the brain determines as "color".
Yes it is possible that when you turn out the light in your kitchen all of it will disappear. But the chances of that happening are about the same as winning the lottery 1000 times in a row. It ain't gonna happen.
You do realize your interpretation of quantum physics (the "Copenhagen") interpretation is extremely outdated and has since been very modified?
No they cannot a "duration" or "position" but they do have a likely duration and position! And even quantum physics acknowledges they have to go SOMEWHERE. They don't just cease to exist.
The butter doesn't exist only within the mind it exists on its own! Every person in the world could look away from it but a robotic camera could take a picture. Later on looking at that picture we know, "Hey, that's butter." Also if that was true wouldn't someone else have to constantly be looking at us? If no one is looking at me do I cease to exist? Oh crap everyone keep looking at everyone or else we'll pop out of existence!
You act as if "observed" means someone is looking at it. "Observed" simply means a particle is interacting with it! And there is no where in the known universe where there aren't billions of particles out there ready to interact and make something observed. Of course this starts to make sense when you do a simple thought experiment. Suppose a completely empty universe with two people and some photons bouncing around. Well if one person can somehow prevent a single photon from hitting him the other person will have no clue he is there. Because there's nothing to see him with! That's exactly like a black hole except a black hole captures all the photons.
No, the conjecture you make that information CAN be passed superluminally is flat out wrong. Even entanglement cannot overcome that.
Okay if the universe is made by life how did the universe exist during the 13 billion or so years before life on Earth? Even if there was life somewhere else, I'm pretty sure there wasn't any life a few minutes after the big bang when there was only atomic nuclei.
I won't get into space and time because those are extremely iffy subjects. No one is quite sure about those but even if they do not exist as we think of them they do at least represent some fundamental construction of the universe. To say they are PURELY creations of ours borders on ridiculous.

I didn't double check that so don't quote me on that stuff. I might have gotten a thing or two wrong. Like I said quick notes as I read.

Convinced of the reality if free will, how could I not believe in a participatory universe? It sure beats feeling like an impotent observer in an accidemtal universe!

A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Fredianism and Materialism.

Cool story bro but it's all just handwaving until you can explain and predict real events

In a way, Owens is right that this article is a doorway for religion. But not all religion, only the type used by right-wing politicians. Although it seems like most of these are Christians (I don't have statistics to confirm or deny that suspicion), this is something that all faiths are capable of slipping into, or more importantly, pulling out of. This article uses passing references to quantum theory to support a view, also pushed in many other guises, that reality is something that can be written. It could be the Vedas, the Bible, the Book of Secrets, Kevin Trudeau, Velikovsky, or whatever. But once you've been debriefed, you can accept any and all of these fairy tales, and even write your own.

There are obviously foundational theories that need to be speculated on to put physics on a rational basis. But just as obviously, they must be totally different from the aforesaid books. The equations found by the successful physical theorists have a truth of their own, consistently verified by experiments, that arguably has little to do with the context in which they were proposed. Reasonable speculation can proceed only by further developing this mathematical foundation.

Atheists are fond of saying that the universe has progressed on its own, with no evidence of being influenced by God. I ask them, are you saying where is God, if all the universe does is follow equations? In the equations, of course! The atheists seem to be unaware of the large, and apparently increasing, group of religious people who consider God to be nothing more comprehensible than that which ties together the seemingly incompatible laws of physics, not because the "gaps" in our knowledge haven't been filled in yet, but because the more we know the wider the gaps get. These people, myself included, do not draw authority from any sacred texts, and may never even have read them except for ritual purposes. We are well aware that our holy books have many sections that are wrong in many ways. Pointing these things out does not shake our faith, because that's not where our faith comes from.

I don't know what Owens means about "debunking" the Anthropic Principle, since there is nothing even remotely testable about it, and it's not even clear what it means. I can only assume he is referring to the claim made by string theorists that our universe is only one of many. However, there are serious problems with this.

* This could be argued either for or against the Anthropic Principle, depending on how you interpret it.

* The universes spoken of interact only through gravity, and their mass is supposed to be the missing mass deduced from astronomy. This directly contradicts the fact that the missing mass is concentrated around the large clusters of known mass (such as galaxies), and is thus obviously a feature of our own universe.

* The only testable hypothesis of string theory is supersymmetry, which the LHC is failing to find.

It seems that string theory is simply the atheists' answer to Intelligent Design. It is just as antithetical and inimical to science.

The electrons or subatomic particles which were used in the double slit experiment became a wave when not observed, i get that, but i do not understand how this was recorded without being observed, did a camera record it? if so what kind?

Maybe we are just it looking at itself.

Wow. But if there are 100 of us in the same room, who gets to create the room in which we are all standing in? Me? Or You?

Alarmist but well put.

Quantum electrodynamics + Biology = Who am I ?
==.
Cells make copies of themselves.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes.
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own
geometrical form from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you.
Cells they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
#
Maybe 99% agree that 'Cells - they are you .'
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
' Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.'
===.
Is this formulation correct?
Of course it is correct.
Why?
Because:
Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity)
refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields
produced by living cells, tissues or organisms.

What does it mean?
It means there isn't biological cell without electromagnetic fields.
It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances:
matter and electromagnetic fields.
And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.

He wrote: ' The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. '
/ page 10. /
#
Once again:
1.
Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.
2.
We cannot understand their interaction and therefore
we don't know the answer to the question: ' who am I ?'
==.
Where does electromagnetic field come from ?
=.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn't electromagnetic field
( em waves ) without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
Can evolution of consciousness begin on electron's level?
==.
Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe
Electron takes important part in this work.
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron's energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron's
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell's equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Nobody knows.
====.
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical.
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don't know what is an electron ?
====.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:

"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
==.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe,
he is wiser than we are.
=====.
According to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two)
then this atom represents a " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children. ( ! )
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it. ( ! )
==.
Brain and Electron.
Human brain works on two levels:
consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain
create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and
subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction
between billions and billions neurons and electron).
It can only mean that the state of neurons in these two
situations is different.
How can we understand these different states of neurons?
How does the brain generate consciousness?
We can understand this situation only on the quantum level,
only using Quantum theory. But there isn't QT without
Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between
Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ? Nobody knows.
#
Conclusion:
We are cells + Electron. ( ! )
We must understand not only the cells, brain but electron too.
And when we understand the Electron
we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===========.