The Biocentric Universe

[CraigS]

Ok .. this thread has been spawned by the 'Hawking leads by Faith' thread.

Wiki says about Biocentrism:

Biocentrism ... also known as the biocentric universe, is a theory proposed in 2007 by American scientist Robert Lanza. In this view, life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos — life creates the universe rather than the other way around. Biocentrism asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness.

Robert Lanza is an American Doctor of Medicine, scientist, Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Lanza's biocentric theory builds on quantum physics. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism places biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.
Reception of Lanza's theory has been mixed. Critics have questioned whether the theory is falsifiable. Lanza has argued that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.

The basic principles are:
1) What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.
2) Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.
3) The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer.
4) Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability.
5) The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism.
6) Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception.
7) Space, like time, is not an object or a thing.

Lanza's original paper is here.

Its an interesting idea (philosophically), so it maybe worthwhile 'kicking around' a bit to see how it sits with the community.

I find some ideas interesting, as it does provide a perspective on science which serves as yet another reminder that there are things out there we may never fully understand, purely because of our own make-up.

Please note this thread and 'theory' is speculative. The ultimate testability of this one is already questionable (by peer scientists). The links to quantum physics I find, are tenuous. (Yep .. my opinion).

Interesting.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I'm going to copy Rowland's last post on the 'Hawking' thread over to this thread, as it provides a link into the quantum physics entanglement phenomena, which Lanza uses in support of his ideas.

Rowland: I hope you don't mind. I have a few comments about the article.

Originally Posted by rcheshire

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality. Human intervention - was scientific method applied to this experiment? Does it demonstrate that both are simultaneously correct in their assertions... but only when observing subatomic particles... which is pretty much all of the time…

Cheers

[CraigS]

Ok .. from the article included in Rowland's post, I'd like to point out:

Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

So, the observer wasn't human, eh ?

What does this say about human consciousness causing, (or at the least, influencing), the altered behaviour of particles (from particle to EM waves)?

I can't see this experiment making any statements about that.

Surely, it was the act of measurement, which appears to alter the behaviours of the quantum particles … not the presence of a conscious mind.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I am also very sceptical about a theory which starts out under the premise that:

that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work

A big, sweeping generalisation, projected into the future, even !
Mind you, these words come from Wiki. The closest words I can find coming from Lanza's own mouth/pen are:

Today’s preoccupation with physical theories of everything takes a wrong turn from the purpose of science—to question all things relentlessly. Modern physics has become like Swift’s kingdom of Laputa, flying absurdly on an island above the earth and indifferent to what is beneath. When science tries to resolve its conflicts by adding and subtracting dimensions to the universe like houses on a Monopoly board, we need to look at our dogmas and recognize that the cracks in the system are just the points that let the light shine more directly on the mystery of life.

Images of satire, mockery and in some sense, bordering on contempt (IMHO). Which, I think is unnecessary, as some of the other points he makes in a more balanced part of his paper, are reasonably supported with evidence:

The mystery is plain. Neuroscientists have developed theories that might help to explain how separate pieces of information are integrated in the brain and thus succeed in elucidating how different attributes of a single perceived object—such as the shape, color, and smell of a flower—are merged into a coherent whole. These theories reflect some of the important work that is occurring in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, but they are theories of structure and function. They tell us nothing about how the performance of these functions is accompanied by a conscious experience; and yet the difficulty in understanding consciousness lies precisely here, in this gap in our understanding of how a subjective experience emerges from a physical process. Even Steven Weinberg concedes that although consciousness may have a neural correlate, its existence does not seem to be derivable from physical laws.

… this, to me, is more interesting material. He is still undermining his own theory however because his fundamental tenet lies in there being a direct linkage, (ie: cause and effect), between the physical world, and our creation of a subjective experience, as a result of interacting with it.

Cheers

[bojan]

Reminds me of EU "theories".

[yusufcam (Colin)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Surely, it was the act of measurement, which appears to alter the behaviours of the quantum particles … not the presence of a conscious mind.

Cheers

so no one observed the measurement?

just kidding....

the ideas remind me a bit of the british empiricist philosophers.

who also said...

"if a tree falls and no one hears it does it make a sound?"

so then, looking back we ask what's philosophy to do with science and looking forward where is the dividing line?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Reminds me of EU "theories".

Yep … there's a sense of 'conspiracy', 'cherry-picking', absence of evidence implying something's 'wrong' with science, etc. And the sense of some credibility as well.

However, the bit about time being 'all in the mind' .. well .. there might be something to that …

Cheers

[CraigS]

Hi Colin;
I don't mind looking into this kind of stuff … and at the end of the day, I'd also like to 'milk it for all its worth' and leave with something of value, eh ?
Its interesting .. I'll give it that much.

Originally Posted by yusufcam

so no one observed the measurement?

just kidding….

You might be kidding … but you raise the crucial point. The human observation was not on the 'critical path' of the experiment. So how could it have influenced the reality of the observation ?

Originally Posted by yusufcam

the ideas remind me a bit of the british empiricist philosophy.

who also said...

"if a tree falls and no one hears it does it make a sound?"

..or other sayings, too impolite to mention here ..


Cheers

[yusufcam (Colin)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

However, the bit about time being 'all in the mind' .. well .. there might be something to that …

Cheers

you're right, we must be all cherry pickers at heart

(sorry, couldn't help myself so... )

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by yusufcam

you're right, we must be all cherry pickers at heart

(sorry, couldn't help myself so... )

The trick is though to make sure the cherries you pick are from your own orchard !

So many times I see others picking good research from those who have done their best, using scientific methodologies, peer-review, etc, and then 'raiders' come by, pick the low-hanging fruit, and then use it to deride that which developed it in the first place !

And they expect to be taken seriously ?

Cheers

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

No problems Craig. But it seems to have created a bit of discussion. It was a little tongue in cheek given the conversation in the other thread.

Interesting - there is a tendency to report according to bias, it's a human trait. If I wanted to go that way, I could say that the act of measurement was a human intervention, amounting to the same thing as a conscious intent to measure, therefore the measurement was conscious.

I think it needs further investigation. We come back to the juncture where bias then confirms our predisposition - confirmation bias perhaps?

[yusufcam (Colin)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The trick is though to make sure the cherries you pick are from your own orchard !

So many times I see others picking good research from those who have done their best, using scientific methodologies, peer-review, etc, and then 'raiders' come by, pick the low-hanging fruit, and then use it to deride that which developed it in the first place !

And they expect to be taken seriously ?

Cheers

likewise, true...

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

3) The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer.

I don't understand the logic in there. I understand that the action of measuring sometimes disturbs the state of what you are measuring but if the observer is not doing anything and is not there, then what's the difference?

[DJDD]

this seems to be similar to other threads that it has been suggested we ignore in the science forum?

i mean, why is there discussion on a topic that quotes "life creates the universe rather than the other way around." ?

[bojan]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I don't understand the logic in there. I understand that the action of measuring sometimes disturbs the state of what you are measuring but if the observer is not doing anything and is not there, then what's the difference?

The logic is simple:
For example, to measure the position of the electron, we have to use some sort of measuring gauge.. and precision one.
The light comes to mind.. and to achieve the precision, we have to use short wavelengths... that means high energy photons.
When the electron disperses the photon, we know exactly where it was.. but we have no idea where it is now after measurement of position and in which direction it flew away.

If we use low energy photons, the momentum after measurement will be known.. but the position will be very uncertain.

Those two parameters, momentum and position are intimately connected via Plank constant.. and we simply can not know both values at the same time with arbitrary precision (Heisenberg principle of uncertainty).

This is what is meant by observer's influence on object of measurement.

[adman (Adam)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I don't understand the logic in there. I understand that the action of measuring sometimes disturbs the state of what you are measuring but if the observer is not doing anything and is not there, then what's the difference?

the results of experiments change depending on how closely we observe them

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I don't understand the logic in there. I understand that the action of measuring sometimes disturbs the state of what you are measuring but if the observer is not doing anything and is not there, then what's the difference?

Hi Marc;

Ok .. this comes from quantum mechanics.

The idea is that say a photon, (or an electron), can behave either as:
i) a particle or;
ii) an electromagnetic (EM) wave.

It has been proven experimentally in photon 'two hole' experiments (where a light is shone through two holes cut into an opaque sheet), that the actual act of measuring the particle, flips its behaviour from acting as an EM wave ie: generating say, an interference pattern on a screen at one instant, to behaving as a particle of light by being registered (or counted) as a photon, by a photon 'counter'.

The sleight of hand seemingly being orchestrated by Lanza however, is that he seems to be mixing up the word 'observer', (which implies a human being, with eyes and a conscious brain), with the inanimate measuring device whose job is to register a photon count when it 'sees' one. It doesn't matter whether its a human or an inanimate measurement device .. the results are the same.

Quantum mechanics theorises that the photon is in an 'indeterminate' state, until something, (or someone), measures it. When the measurement occurs, it instantly behaves as a particle (in the way I just described).

So, it is possible to show that by not doing any measurements, the light can be made to go through two holes at the same time (ie: it acts as an EM wave). As soon as we introduce the measuring gizmo, a 'count' is instantly registered by the counter, at either one or the other of the holes. So, in effect, by introducing the measuring device, we have 'controlled' the behaviour states of the light. We can make use of this in computers. It is analogous to the binary logic arithmetic processes, which are then built into AND, OR, NAND, NOR, etc switching gates, which are then used to perform the calculations which underpin all computer functions.

We're going to have to get used to all this 'cause they're already building quantum computers which will work on these very same principles !

Hope this helps.

Cheers
PS: This experiment may be a slight variant of the double slit experiment.

[joe_smith]

Please Note: what I am saying here is speculative and the way I see how it might work.
It might not work for you, but its the way I see it and its my model only. All quotes I quotes are not trying to disproving your view. Its only me testing mine

I could say that the act of measurement was a human intervention, amounting to the same thing as a conscious intent to measure, therefore the measurement was conscious.

could that be exactly what is happening? the device's we use, are extensions of our senses (like cameras ect) plus a conscious mind was still connected to the experiment say by type of entanglement quantum physics type view ok and didn't the 2 slit experiment show that when we/something make an observation we collapse the wave. It's life Jim, but not as we know it… could the device be a simple form of life a type of very simple first cell?? the new biocentric type view its simple its not all this maths and physics hard to find particles going around and around. its just a cell doing what cells do helping build our reality.

Now think about machines being simple cells could they be affecting our reallity?? could this be science fiction becoming science fact again?? dose this also point to what we dream and work towards becomes our reality in the future.

This is the most important part of the biocentic model it must include biology as well.
remember early cell evolution as its important to my model, and I think to the real model as well. so can you see where I am coming from?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Please Note: what I am saying here is speculative and the way I see how it might work.
It might not work for you, but its the way I see it and its my model only. All quotes I quotes are not trying to disproving your view. Its only me testing mine

could that be exactly what is happening? the device's we use, are extensions of our senses (like cameras ect) plus a conscious mind was still connected to the experiment say by type of entanglement quantum physics type view ok and didn't the 2 slit experiment show that when we/something make an observation we collapse the wave. It's life Jim, but not as we know it… could the device be a simple form of life a type of very simple first cell?? the new biocentric type view its simple its not all this maths and physics hard to find particles going around and around. its just a cell doing what cells do helping build our reality.

I'd say that's exactly what Lanza is on about, yep.

But its very superficial.

For instance, an electronic detector has a fundamentally different set of behaviours going on inside it, that are driven by the same elemental forces of nature (electro weak/strong), than my brain does. So, how do you know that its my mind causing the outcome of the experiment, or those elemental forces behaving themselves and doing what they were always going to do ? After all, if my mind is conscious, it has intent, purpose, etc. I'm anticipating the outcome. The detector doesn't behave the same way (it has no brain, no consciousness). So, if you replace the detector with my brain/eyes etc, the outcome is the same. That's one line of thought.

Ok, so one might say that somehow, I've imprinted my thoughts onto the detector.
If this is the case, then the detector also has consciousness. If this is the case, then there is no difference between my brain and a photon detector. If there's no difference, then everything around us must have consciousness (that being caused by those things having been imprinted upon by my own conspiring brain/consciousness).

In the end, my brain is nothing special. Neither is my consciousness. Its the same as everything else around me.
So, were back to where we started.
How has this idea forwarded anything ?

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Now think about machines being simple cells could they be affecting our reallity?? could this be science fiction becoming science fact again??

Maybe fact becoming sci-fi ?

Originally Posted by joe_smith

so can you see where I am coming from?

I can see where you and Lanza are coming from, Joe. And that's fine.
And I personally don't buy it.
But I don't mind the bit about us creating 'time' through our consciousness.

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

But I don't mind the bit about us creating 'time' through our consciousness.

Cheers

Whose consciousness? Yours or mine?
Or, we are all just simulations in someone's BIG computer ?