| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
5327 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 05:36:10
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
URL: http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/you-really-are-the-center-of-the-universe/ |
|
I'm attracted to biocentric idea that our universe is a manifestation of
consciousness. A creative idea actualized from nothing into everything.
"Why does the universe have the weirdly specific properties needed for
life?
Scientists tell us how small and insignificant we are in the vastness of the
universe. We go to and fro our little affairs on an insignificant little planet
orbiting an insignificant little sun. According to this view, the universe
doesn’t care if we—the little creatures who inhabit this earth—are alive or
dead.
But there’s a tiny problem: The entire universe appears to be designed for
us, not just at the microscope scale of the atom, but at the level of the
universe itself. We’ve discovered that the cosmos has a long list of traits
that make it appear as if everything it contains—from atoms to stars—was
tailor-made just for us. Many are calling this revelation the “Goldilocks
Principle,” because the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that,” but rather
“just right” for life. Others invoke “Intelligent Design” because they
believe it’s no accident the cosmos is so ideally suited for us, although the
latter label is a Pandora’s Box that opens up all manner of arguments for
the Bible, and other topics that are irrelevant here, or worse.
At the moment, there are only two explanations for this mystery. One is
to say, “God did that,” which explains nothing even if it is true. The other
is to invoke biocentrism or the Anthropic principle, several versions of
which strongly support each other.
It’s clear that if the Big Bang had been just one part in a million more
powerful, the cosmos would have blown outward too fast to allow stars
and worlds to form. Result: No us. Even more coincidentally, the
universe’s four forces and all of its constants are just perfectly set up for
atomic interactions, the existence of atoms and elements, planets, water
and life. Tweak any of them and you never existed.
Such life-friendly values of physics are built into the universe like the
cotton fabric woven into our currency. The gravitational constant is
perhaps the most famous, but the fine structure constant is just as critical
for life. If it were just 1.1 or more of its present value, fusion would no
longer occur in stars. Or consider the electromagnetic force. The great
physicist Richard Feynman said “All good theoretical physicists put this
number up on their wall and worry about it. Immediately you would like
to know where this number for a coupling comes from…Nobody knows.
It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that
comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of
God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.”
…we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this
number come out, without putting it in secretly!”
It amounts to 1/137 when the units are filled in, and facilitates the
existence of atoms and allows the entire universe to exist. Any change in
its value and none of us are here.
Mustn’t our theories explain why we live in such a highly unlikely reality?
Some say, since we’re here the universe HAS to be the way it is and
therefore isn’t unlikely at all. Case closed.
Such reasoning is known as the “weak” Anthropic Principle. The “strong”
version says that the universe MUST have those properties which allow life
to develop within it, because it was obviously ‘designed’ with the goal of
generating and sustaining observers. But without biocentrism, the strong
anthropic principle has no mechanism for explaining why the universe
must have life sustaining properties. Going further, physicist John Wheeler
(who coined the term “black hole”) advocated what is now called the
Participatory Anthropic Principle: Observers are required to bring the
universe into existence.
Wheeler’s theory said that any pre-life Earth would have existed in an
indeterminate state, like Schrödinger’s cat. If the universe is in a non-
determined state until forced to resolve by an observer, then the
constants have to resolve in such a way as to allow life. Biocentrism builds
upon Wheeler’s conclusions and provides a solution to the anthropic
problem that’s more reasonable than any alternative.
Some guardingly embrace the weak anthropic version and claim that
small changes to the properties of the universe could have easily
produced a universe in which we wouldn’t be here. Ah, but the point is: It
didn’t, and couldn’t.
Critics charge that the weak Anthropic Principle is circular reasoning.
Philosopher John Leslie, said “A man in front of a firing squad of one
hundred riflemen is going to be pretty surprised if every bullet misses
him. Sure he could say to himself, ‘Of course they all missed; that makes
perfect sense, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to wonder why they all
missed.’ But anyone in his or her right mind is going to want to know how
such an unlikely event occurred.”
Biocentrism provides the explanation for why all the shots missed. If the
universe is created by us, then no universe that didn’t allow for life could
possibly exist. The mystery of the goldilocks universe goes away, and the
critical role of life and consciousness in shaping the universe becomes
clear.
So you either have an astonishingly improbable coincidence revolving
around the indisputable fact that the cosmos could have any properties
but happens to have exactly the right ones for life, or else you have
exactly what must be seen if indeed the cosmos is biocentric. Either way,
the notion of a random billiard-ball cosmos that could have had any
forces that boast any range of values, but instead has the weirdly specific
ones needed for life, looks impossible enough to seem downright silly.
And if this seems preposterous, consider the alternative, which is what
contemporary science asks us to believe: That the entire universe,
exquisitely tailored for our existence, popped into existence out of
absolute nothingness. Has anyone offered any credible suggestion for
how we suddenly got a more than a trillion trillion trillion tons of matter
from—zilch? Has anyone explained how dumb carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen molecules could have, by combining accidentally, become
sentient —aware! —and then utilized this sentience to acquire a taste for
hot dogs and the blues? How a random process could mix those
molecules in a blender so that out would pop woodpeckers and George
Clooney? Or explain how atoms can re-arrange themselves so that they
acquire self-awareness and a loathing for macaroni salad?
Is it not obvious that science only pretends to explain the cosmos on its
fundamental level? By reminding us of its great successes at figuring out
the mechanics of things, and fashioning marvelous new devices, science
gets away with patently ridiculous “explanations” for the nature of the
cosmos as a whole. If only it hadn’t given us HDTV and the George
Foreman grill, it wouldn’t have held our attention and respect long
enough to pull the old three-card-monte when it comes to these largest
issues.
Unless one awards points for familiarity and repetition, a consciousness-
based universe scarcely seems far-fetched when compared with the
alternatives. According to biocentrism, what we perceive as reality is a
process that involves our consciousness. The universe is simply the
complete spatio-temporal logic of the self. The behavior of subatomic
particles—indeed all particles and objects—are inextricably linked to the
presence of an observer. The universe is fine-tuned for us, which is only
explainable if we create the universe, not the other way around.
You really are the center of the universe."
Adapted from Biocentrism, by Robert Lanza with Bob Berman.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5328] [5332] [5335] [5337] [5340] [5333] [5336] [5351] |
|
5328 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 07:44:24
From: Sciguy, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
|
There are much more scientific theories on the nature of reality. Even though there will always be questions about the apparent beginning of something from nothing, or whether an eternal continuum exists, imo there is no need to discard the obvious fact that matter exists regardless of whether I look upon it or not. Iow, if I kick a rock, I feel the pain. Having said that, I admit that I do not have the background to evaluate the merits of the article. From what I have read, the ideas put forth are not falsifiable, which puts it in the realm of speculation rather than science.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5332] [5335] [5337] [5340] [5333] [5336] [5351] |
|
5332 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 08:56:08
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
Well, I think it could be falsifiable. If consciousness (human or otherwise)
could be proven to exist only within a physical brain, (which I suspect
won't happen) it seems that would falsify the idea of participatory
anthropic theory, since the theory implies consciousness must transcend
and precede the existence of physical form.
btw, did you ever start meditating?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5335] [5337] [5340] [5333] [5336] [5351] |
|
5335 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 09:51:41
From: Scuguy, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
The question of whether there is consciousness outside of a brain of some kind seems untenable to me. How could consciousness exist except in a brain of some kind? The world is not a sentient being. Every living thing has consciousness if you define it as a response to stimuli, and imo, that is the proper definition. Does an ant have consciousness? I say yes, but in the most primitive form. If you touch it's web, it is immediately conscious that you did so and reacts to the threat, but it is not conscious enough of the question of whether it should move it's nest or not. I have demolished a web on in inappropriate location on my house many times, and the web is always rebuilt in exactly the same place the next day, indicating that the spider has no consciousness that would enable it to recognize why it's home was being systematically destroyed.
Your comment that the PAT theory would imply that consciousness must transcend and precede the existence of physical form is what makes the theory irrational to me. I realize that there are valid questions about how the universe evolved which may never be completely resolved, but I don't believe that the enormity of the problem is leveled by increasingly illogical, unfounded theories. However, as I said, I am a realist. I don't believe in fairy tales, especially when it involves wild theories of how the Universe came to be which violate all I know about reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5337] [5340] |
|
5337 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 10:03:11
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
|
so consciousness resides in the brain, eh? interesting...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5340] |
|
5340 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 10:20:19
From: Sciguy, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
|
What is interesting is that you make one sentence responses like that which say nothing about why you bothered to make the statement. Who are you, mr bopp, the board wants to know.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5333 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 09:09:14
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
|
ok, I'm guessing the answer is no. lol
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5336] [5351] |
|
5336 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 09:58:50
From: Sciguy, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
Well sorry, I just got to your messages, and I got caught up in the web of my senility while composing my response.
No, I do not believe that meditation would have any affect on me--I'm too rational for that. I do believe that some people are helped by meditation. I also believe that some people are harmed by too much meditation. I'm a loner. I don't need meditation to solve my problems, I can get along just fine without it.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5351] |
|
5351 |
|
|
Date: October 28, 2014 at 13:59:13
From: BJ, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Participatory Anthropic Principle |
|
|
"caught up in the web of my senility"
Well, that does explain a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |