Biocentrism? What?

[b1ngnx33]

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01 ... ace-cosmos

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

In a nutshell :

A scientific theory which posits the view "that life creates the universe instead of the other way around."[2] In this view, current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness."[3]

My ignorant opinion :

LOL

Hah Hah.

So, I was alive 13.7 billion years ago to make the big bang. Yeah. *cough* Bu***s**t *cough*

It's a funny theory, but a joke none-the-less.

So, life has made the earth into a living hell hole full of crap which I will not mention due to great censorship, I mean

net-political-don't-offend-anyone [npdoa] program.

Life has made such a wonderful universe. Wow.

Can I sue life for being an incompetent, negligent, retarded, pos?

Which judicial body would even take on a lawsuit against life?

This has been another waste of time. Useless words in a useless world.

Just the way it should be. A goddam waste of time.

I will leave with a quote that I will mess up and cannot remember who said it, usually.

"A primitive mind trying desperately to justify an existence without meaning or purpose, only a
human mind could invent something as insipid as love" -- Mr. Smith

Yup. I messed up somewhere. Too lazy too look it up.

[yfly]

I'll just stick to my evolutionary creationism theory.

[VikVaughan]

Um, I believe Biocentrism is simply the belief that Humans are just another animal, no more or less important than anything else.

(As opposed to the typical theological view that humans are the center of existence, and that everything else was put here "for us".)

Then again, I couldn't understand half of your rambling post. Maybe you had some sort of point in there?

[Jastapilot]

Science

Biocentrism can refer to the scientific position that life and consciousness form the basis of observable reality [7], and thereby the basis of the universe itself.[8] The biocentric theory proposed by Robert Lanza builds on quantum physics by putting life into the equation.[9] His theory places biology above the other sciences in an attempt to solve one of nature’s biggest puzzles: the theory of everything that other disciplines have been pursuing for the last century. [10]
In biocentrism, space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. Understanding this more fully yields answers to several major puzzles of mainstream science, and offers a new way of understanding everything from the microworld (for instance, the reason for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the double-slit experiment) to the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe[7]
Above all, according to an article in Discover magazine [11] “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.”
The psychology and metaphysics of Ludwig Klages have been described as biocentric. [12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism

[Rockie]

I don't remember reading that here:

[VikVaughan]

The meaning of "biocentrism" discussed by the original poster is not in line with the traditional definition of the word. Take a look in your dictionary (or if people don't own such things these days, try http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biocentrism or http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0 ... y_a-d.html). Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information.

This theory that you are discussing, while interesting, is just that - a theory. As are ALL other explanations of the workings of the world and the universe. To simply denounce or accept one of them is unintelligent at best.

So, I was alive 13.7 billion years ago to make the big bang. Yeah. *cough* Bu***s**t *cough*

I also think that your interpretation and understanding of what the information presented means is fairly poor, based on several parts of your post.

(BTW: The big bang in-and-of itself is a theory.)

I think Einstein put it best when he explained that the universe is like a stopwatch that cannot be opened. We can observe the motion of the stopwatch's hands, and based on that motion we can theorize how it's insides are arranged. But we can never open the watch to see if we were right.

So why sweat it?

[Spokes]

...
This theory that you are discussing, while interesting, is just that - a theory. As are ALL other explanations of the workings of the world and the universe. To simply denounce or accept one of them is unintelligent at best.

...
(BTW: The big bang in-and-of itself is a theory.)

...

What do you mean by "Just a Theory"?

In science, a theory is the top dog in explaining how things in the natural world work. A good theory, amoung other things, will make predictions that can be tested through experimentation. Fail the test, and the theory must be discarded, or modified. Pass the test, and we trust the theory a bit more. Pass the test many times, then we trust the theory to a greater extent. We may even build devices that depend on these actions. But if later on, some prediction made by the theory does not pass, then it still must be discarded or in this case more likely need to be modified.

An example of this is in Newtons equations describing the orbits of the planets. They are very accurate, indeed we sent men to the moon, and probes to various planets based on this math. But there were inconsistancies though. So it was known that there was more to the story. 300ish years later, Einstein filled in the blanks with Special Reletivity - a modification if you will.

The "Big Bang" theory makes a number of predictions that can, and have been tested by experiment. To date it is the best explanation for the origins of the universe. I remember as a kid, seeing in science books other theories that competed with the "Big Bang". These are no longer seen, because they have been discarded by the scientific process.

General Reletivity is currently the best 'theory' available for describing how large bodied objects (larger than the atomic scale that is) behave. Quantum mechanics is currently the best 'theory' available for describing the world of the very tiny. Each make predictions that have been verified repeatedly by experimentation to incredable degrees of accuracy within the realm they seek to explain. Yet both are known to by incomplete. As objects become small, General Reletivity breaks down as sub-atomic forces become prevelant. Vice Versa for QM. Yet despite all this, the predictability of these theories allows for things like GPS (for example) to work, probes to be landed on a Saturnian moon, or the creation of nano-tubes, computers, tiny nano-devices, cell phones, etc...

Natural Selection is another example of a theory that makes several predictions, that over time have been tested with posative outcomes.

The problem I am seeing with the Discovery article is that although they call this Biocentrism thing a theory, they do not really discuss any predictions, or ways of testing it. I am no expert, but I cannot see any myself. The only discussion is in comparing the universe we see to the 'universe' of a spider that can only see as far as its web. Does not really sound like any kind of theory. Sounds more philosophical to me.

[VikVaughan]

...
This theory that you are discussing, while interesting, is just that - a theory. As are ALL other explanations of the workings of the world and the universe. To simply denounce or accept one of them is unintelligent at best.

...
(BTW: The big bang in-and-of itself is a theory.)

...

What do you mean by "Just a Theory"?

Well, you've changed the context of what I said by rewording it before you placed it in quotations. However, I don't necessarily disagree with my re contextualized statement either.

You must keep in mind that theories are not concrete things, but are ideas that are constantly evolving and are nothing more than a guess that substantiates our observations. Within some living people's lifetime, we used to believe that space was not empty, but filled with a substance called "the ether", as that was the only explanation for light - a wave - to travel through space, since all waves need a medium to propagate. We used to believe that electrons orbited around the nucleus of an atom, like planets do the sun. Every theory mankind has ever developed has been done away with at some point and replaced by a new one. Personally, I think people sometimes need to accept that they will never know the answer and just leave it at that. Theories are useful when they can be applied to practical applications, but when they are used to develop and support theological or philosophical ideas, they really are "just a theory".

I don't disagree with you, In fact I think we agree on most things. I just don't believe theories are worthy of as much weight as people give them in certain situations.

[Spokes]

Fair enough, but what would you place above a theory? Assumiing you still stand by the statement of "just a theory".

[VikVaughan]

Humble acceptance that I may never know the real answer.

However, if i haaaaad to hazard a guess as to why something truly "is", then I admit a scientific theory would be my next best option.

[Spokes]

You must keep in mind that theories are not concrete things, but are ideas that are constantly evolving and are nothing more than a guess that substantiates our observations. ...
I don't disagree with you, In fact I think we agree on most things. I just don't believe theories are worthy of as much weight as people give them in certain situations.

A scientific Theory is much much more than a guess the fits a set of observations. A scientific theory must make predictions and be falsifiable.

The predictions a theory makes must be testabale. For example, 150 years ago The theory of natural selection predicted that the fossils would be found if intermediate species between two known species. These have been found (in abundance). Had none been found the theory would have been suspect. The theory also predicted that some mechanism must exist to allow for modification/mutation of species over time. In the 1950's Genetics and DNA provided this.

One of quantum mechanics predictions was the spontanious production of particle-anti particle pairs. These two particles quickly collide and anihalate each other. This is testable, and was done so with the measurement of the kashamir force. (not sure if I spelled that right). Move two plates very close together, less than the distance these two should separate, and you should be able to measure a pressure forcing the plates apart. This was done to and measured to match what the theory predicted. Had it not been there, then it would have uncovered a fundimental flaw with QM.

As I have said above, The article in Discover did not mention any prediction made by Biocentrism, nor can I see any possible. There is no way it could be falsified, and therefore it is not really I scientific theory. (unless there is something I am missing).

This is also one of the main complaints of superstring theory. The math works great, but no testable predictions. (again, that I can see).

Like I said above, in the world of science the "Theory" is top dog in explaining observations of the natural world. These are not arrived at willy-nilly however. The idea that it is a guess that someone has that resides along side a number of guesses is one that is comonly held by many people.

For further reading on this subject, and quite probably a more clear explanation, might I recoment Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World".