Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Belk]

I guess that is why Time magazine has him as 1 of the top 100 influential people of the world, in 2014: "Lanza really only gained a following amongst those who don't really understand science"; I have look at both sides of the arguments made for and against biocentrism and 13 years ago I looked at the Quantum physics experiments and felt that someone would write a book concluding what Robert did, as I had came to the same conclusions. A couple of years ago I did a search and saw Robert did write such a book, but he is not some quack scientist as you state: nothing can be further from the truth and maybe you should take a look at his credentials before you make the ignorant statements you do about him.

http://time.com/time100-2014/ Go to profession, then science, and you will see Robert there.

http://www.robertlanza.com/ Here are some of Roberts credentials, now let's see the credentials of your critics.

Being influential does not make one correct.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess that is why Time magazine has him as 1 of the top 100 influential people of the world, in 2014: "Lanza really only gained a following amongst those who don't really understand science";

Time magazine votes for those "most influential people"...not the public. Also, they voted for him based on his work in stem cell research...not biocentrism.

I have look at both sides of the arguments made for and against biocentrism and 13 years ago I looked at the Quantum physics experiments and felt that someone would write a book concluding what Robert did, as I had came to the same conclusions.

Well then you misunderstood the same experiments he did...there's no experiments that you've quoted yet that support your views.

A couple of years ago I did a search and saw Robert did write such a book, but he is not some quack scientist as you state: nothing can be further from the truth and maybe you should take a look at his credentials before you make the ignorant statements you do about him.

http://time.com/time100-2014/ Go to profession, then science, and you will see Robert there.

http://www.robertlanza.com/ Here are some of Roberts credentials, now let's see the credentials of your critics.

I'll be honest, I didn't know that he is such an accomplished biologist. Perhaps that explains his lack of knowledge in physics.

https://in.linkedin.com/in/vinod-wadhawan-77651244

There's the credentials of one of the authors, a doctorate in solid state physics. He's what you could call an expert in the field. Lanza should stick to biology and stem cells.

 

[2 know him]

Time magazine votes for those "most influential people"...not the public. Also, they voted for him based on his work in stem cell research...not biocentrism.



Well then you misunderstood the same experiments he did...there's no experiments that you've quoted yet that support your views.

I'll be honest, I didn't know that he is such an accomplished biologist. Perhaps that explains his lack of knowledge in physics.

https://in.linkedin.com/in/vinod-wadhawan-77651244

There's the credentials of one of the authors, a doctorate in solid state physics. He's what you could call an expert in the field. Lanza should stick to biology and stem cells.

Are you serious? You are using a guy's own self-published education credentials to compare to Robert Lanza's credentials? http://www.robertlanza.com/

Maybe you should read through Robert Lanza's page and links to see all the people with degrees in physics that actually agree with his claims, here are 2 to start with:




“The heart of [biocentrism], collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say “the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.” That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics. So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it—or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private—furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Bless Robert Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with it. Not that I think Robert Lanza could be dissuaded–this dude doesn’t dissuade! Lanza’s remarkable personal story is woven into the book, and is uplifting. You should enjoy this book, and it should help you on your personal journey to understanding.

— Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University

“I downloaded a digital copy of [biocentrism] in the privacy of my home, where no one could observe my buying or reading such a “New Agey” sort of cosmology book. Now, mind you, my motivation was not all that pure. It was my intention to read the book so I could more effectively refute it like a dedicated physicist was expected to…The book had the completely opposite effect on me. The views that Dr. Lanza presented in this book changed my thinking in ways from which there could never be retreat. Before I had actually finished reading the book, it was abundantly obvious to me that Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking. Everything I had learned and everything I thought I knew just exploded in my mind and, as possibilities first erupted and then settled down, a completely new understanding emerged. The information I had accumulated in my mind hadn’t changed, but the way I viewed it did –in a really big way.”

— Scott M. Tyson, Physicist, The Unobservable Universe

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh dear...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you serious? You are using a guy's own self-published education credentials to compare to Robert Lanza's credentials? http://www.robertlanza.com/

Even people with strong credentials can believe in woo.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you serious? You are using a guy's own self-published education credentials to compare to Robert Lanza's credentials? http://www.robertlanza.com/

Maybe you should read through Robert Lanza's page and links to see all the people with degrees in physics that actually agree with his claims, here are 2 to start with:




“The heart of [biocentrism], collectively, is correct. On page 15 they say “the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.” That is the essence of the entire book, and that is factually correct. It is an elementary conclusion from quantum mechanics. So what Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it—or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private—furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no! Bless Robert Lanza for creating this book, and bless Bob Berman for not dissuading friend Robert from going ahead with it. Not that I think Robert Lanza could be dissuaded–this dude doesn’t dissuade! Lanza’s remarkable personal story is woven into the book, and is uplifting. You should enjoy this book, and it should help you on your personal journey to understanding.

— Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University

“I downloaded a digital copy of [biocentrism] in the privacy of my home, where no one could observe my buying or reading such a “New Agey” sort of cosmology book. Now, mind you, my motivation was not all that pure. It was my intention to read the book so I could more effectively refute it like a dedicated physicist was expected to…The book had the completely opposite effect on me. The views that Dr. Lanza presented in this book changed my thinking in ways from which there could never be retreat. Before I had actually finished reading the book, it was abundantly obvious to me that Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking. Everything I had learned and everything I thought I knew just exploded in my mind and, as possibilities first erupted and then settled down, a completely new understanding emerged. The information I had accumulated in my mind hadn’t changed, but the way I viewed it did –in a really big way.”

— Scott M. Tyson, Physicist, The Unobservable Universe

Hey that's great...you found two. Would you like me to start posting the ones I found that disagree with him and think biocentrism is nonsense?

You asked for the guy's credentials...so I gave you them. If you doubt them, look it up for yourself. As for Lanza's credentials...he's a very accomplished biologist who knows squat about physics. Posting his biologist credentials doesn't change that. Here's another breakdown of why biocentrism is nonsense, it's a lot more "accessible" than the last link I gave you....

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/biocentrism-continued/

Here's my favorite quote from that page...


"This too does not seem sufficient, for it is not just his facts but his logic that is severely off. A commenter to yesterday’s post pointed out an interview in which Lanza discusses the death of his sister, and how this helped him realize that death is not permanent because consciousness exists outside of space and time. Here we have a significant motivation to embrace something like biocentrism. It is likely that biocentrism is ultimately the sophisticated rationalization of a smart guy dealing with the pain of mortality.

Such rationalizations can create significant blinders, causing a scientist to embrace pseudoscience."

 

[Hieronymus]

“the animal observer creates reality and not the other way around.”

Obvious bunk.

 

[2 know him]

Obvious bunk.

You obviously haven't begun to research any of the quantum physics experiments; matter does not become a particle without the observer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You obviously haven't begun to research any of the quantum physics experiments; matter does not become a particle without the observer.

You obviously haven't, because that isn't true. An "observer" does not have to be a conscious being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[2 know him]

This man makes a statement that we don't need a consciousness to be an observer: hmmm how then would one observe without a consciousness? made at 5:55 of the video. It is clear that this gentleman is making his statements not upon having read the book biocentrism but rather from an article written on Lanza's book. This guy in this video makes a lot of statements about nothing and is arguing a book of ideas without having read the book: this is a very dishonest approach to argue something you have failed to hear the arguments against. It appears that he is just upset with the ideas Lanza presents and is reacting against the idea's without hearing the arguments. Sad.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This man makes a statement that we don't need a consciousness to be an observer: hmmm how then would one observe without a consciousness?

A mechanical laboratory device can function as an "observer". Observation only requires some sort of physical interaction with the thing being observed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Cadet]

This man makes a statement that we don't need a consciousness to be an observer: hmmm how then would one observe without a consciousness?

By bouncing a photon off an electron. That's the observer effect. The change doesn't occur through it being "observed" by some entity, it comes from the very things necessary for an observation (reflecting light) changing the system. An "observer" does not have to be conscious. It could be a rock.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

By bouncing a photon off an electron. That's the observer effect. The change doesn't occur through it being "observed" by some entity, it comes from the very things necessary for an observation (reflecting light) changing the system. An "observer" does not have to be conscious. It could be a rock.

Hey, it says "observer". Googling the word gives me "A person who watches or notices something." So there.

In other news:
Guinea pigs are pigs that come from New Guinea.

Hmmmm, something seems off...

 

[FireDragon76]

"Woo"... now there's a term that when I see it peddled, I know a mind has been closed. Scientific progress is as much about imagination as it is about observation of empirical data.

 

[The Cadet]

"Woo"... now there's a term that when I see it peddled, I know a mind has been closed. Scientific progress is as much about imagination as it is about observation of empirical data.

...No, no no no no no no no no no.

 

[2 know him]

By bouncing a photon off an electron. That's the observer effect. The change doesn't occur through it being "observed" by some entity, it comes from the very things necessary for an observation (reflecting light) changing the system. An "observer" does not have to be conscious. It could be a rock.

Your definition of an observer cannot be true. If one takes a photon of light and passes in through a slot in a box, the box would be the observer and the wave would collapse into a particle, but this is not the case.

 

[2 know him]

You may have a camera, but without an observer observing the transmission of the information, the camera only exists in wave form.

The following taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics) explains the issue:

"A number of interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. For instance, Fritjof Capra writes:

"The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. ... This can be illustrated with the simple case of a subatomic particle. When observing such a particle, one may choose to measure — among other quantities — the particle's position and its momentum" [1]

However, other authorities downplay any special role of human observers:

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."[2]

Critics of the special role of the observer also point out that observers can themselves be observed, leading to paradoxes such as that of Wigner's friend; and that it is not clear how much consciousness is required ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"

I think that this adequately lays a foundation of the issue: either you believe the physical universe exists outside of consciousness or it doesn't, but all the evidence points to the fact that it doesn't and that is what is being argued by both sides. Personally I have no doubt that it doesn't, as the physical universe does not have the necessary eternal properties to be eternal and thus it really cannot exist outside of consciousness and that is why I came to understand that consciousness was the platform for the eternal: 13 years ago. I have no doubt biocentrism has adequately laid the foundation for future generations to expand on the ideas that Lanza points out in his book and which others are alluding to when they point to the fact that matter only takes on particle/physical characteristics with the existence of the observer being present.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You may have a camera, but without an observer observing the transmission of the information, the camera only exists in wave form.

That view is fringe. The poll below unfortunately includes "mathematicians and philosophers", but it shows that the upper boundary on acceptance by physicists is probably very low. Does anyone have better statistics on this?

A poll was conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011 using 33 participants (including physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers). Researchers found that 6% of participants (2 of the 33) indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)". They also mention that "Popular accounts have sometimes suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation attributes such a role to consciousness. In our view, this is to misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

But let's say that the camera exists in wave form. Why does it work just like a regular camera? Why does it collapse the wave forms of what it is "observing", which it must do if it is to function as a camera?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Cadet]

Your definition of an observer cannot be true. If one takes a photon of light and passes in through a slot in a box, the box would be the observer and the wave would collapse into a particle, but this is not the case.

Go ask a physicist. You'll find that my definition is pretty much on point.