The Biocentric Universe Theory

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.

The farther we peer into space, the more we realize that the nature of the universe cannot be understood fully by inspecting spiral galaxies or watching distant supernovas. It lies deeper. It involves our very selves.

This insight snapped into focus one day while one of us (Lanza) was walking through the woods.Looking up, he saw a huge golden orb web spider tethered to the overhead boughs. There the creature sat on a single thread, reaching out across its web to detect the vibrations of a trapped insect struggling to escape.

Read more...

Personally I believe that the Universe is alive. So this theory is not that new to me but I have picked up the book this article is based upon to expand upon this idea in my studies.

When I say that I believe that the Universe is alive I mean as a whole and also as it subparts. I believe that every rock, every planet and all and everything that exists is alive.

I have held this belief system now for many years.

I have seen others here at Unexplained Mysteries express similar thoughts at times so I thought I would share this article here for some discussion.

The article is a little long and the book it is about is a little longer even but it presents a case for a change in perspective in how we view the Universe scientifically.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Also to add....

I have already read through the book once and I while I would highly recommend it to any one who is interested in this area of discussion I would not nessecarily go all out and call the book a great book.

Hopefully his ideas will be expanded upon and the book is a good book but the ideas could of been presented a little better I thought then the job this writer did. (No footnotes or sources even)

But it may also be possible that the issue is already too personal of an issue for me and I was expecting too much. I have many of my own ideas on this issue as I mentioned above. I could possibly write my own book. Others may find this book to be great so hopefully some will be glad I shared this here.

Edited August 23, 2009 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[MID]

Also to add....

I have already read through the book once and I while I would highly recommend it to any one who is interested in this area of discussion I would not nessecarily go all out and call the book a great book.

Hopefully his ideas will be expanded upon and the book is a good book but the ideas could of been presented a little better I thought then the job this writer did. (No footnotes or sources even)

But it may also be possible that the issue is already too personal of an issue for me and I was expecting too much. I have many of my own ideas on this issue as I mentioned above. I could possibly write my own book. Others may find this book to be great so hopefully some will be glad I shared this here.

I think this is an exceptionally valid study.

Quantum mechanics has been pointing to such an understanding for sometime...

I find this statement very intriquing, and worthy of the effort involved in studying the potential inherent in it:

From this point of view, life—particularly consciousness—creates the universe, and the universe could not exist without us.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

I think this is an exceptionally valid study.

Quantum mechanics has been pointing to such an understanding for sometime...

I find this statement very intriquing, and worthy of the effort involved in studying the potential inherent in it:

Yes I would say for myself personally some of the most rewarding reading I have done (and thinking as well) has been about areas whereas consciousness and science intertwine. Quantum Mechanics certainly has been approaching and pointing to the role of the observer as being instrinsic to life itself as well as the study of life.

Consciousness itself is a sort of a wall to science. It is like the Holy Grail in some ways. It is the intertwined entity to any experiment that serves as master, driver, carraige and horses all in one. How can you observe what you all ready are?

There was one experiment mentioned in the book that I certainly want to learn more about though. I am going to try and research it more though before I post about it.

But if you are thinking of buying the book I will add that is a easy read. My biggest complaint about the book is that he didn't really put enough into it. Didn't get deep enough for me. It is a very good book though anyway, I would recommend it and dont regret at all buying it.

It will be interesting to see how the book is viewed in about ten years or so. It is a field and viewpoint that I think we will see great advances in.

[Lt_Ripley]

interesting !

[Black Red Devil]

Yeah good theory. I've always thought there could be a possibility the truth of everything lies in between what we know of Consciousness and what Science has discovered. Infact until Science can explain the reactivity of particles in the Quantum world we shouldn't be discarding any possibilities. Science and Einsteins Theory of Relativity tell us nothing goes faster than light. How about the Mind?

[Mattshark]

Yeah good theory. I've always thought there could be a possibility the truth of everything lies in between what we know of Consciousness and what Science has discovered. Infact until Science can explain the reactivity of particles in the Quantum world we shouldn't be discarding any possibilities. Science and Einsteins Theory of Relativity tell us nothing goes faster than light. How about the Mind?

I think it takes massive leap to assume the mind works on a quantum scale because the brain certainly doesn't.

[Black Red Devil]

I think it takes massive leap to assume the mind works on a quantum scale because the brain certainly doesn't.

It also takes a massive leap to assume Science has already provided us with all the answers.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

I think it takes massive leap to assume the mind works on a quantum scale because the brain certainly doesn't.

I have heard you make this claim in one other thread that we were both engaged. So I need to clear the air here because I disagree. The human mind absolutely operates on a quantum scale. Please present the information that you think makes your claim true and I will try to respond after reading it.

[Godsnmbr1]

Is our knowledge really sufficient to say one way or the other?

[Mattshark]

I have heard you make this claim in one other thread that we were both engaged. So I need to clear the air here because I disagree. The human mind absolutely operates on a quantum scale. Please present the information that you think makes your claim true and I will try to respond after reading it.

Brain -> Mind.

Brian is not quantum. Nerves fire to slow, massive amounts of biochemical evidence showing affects on our brain.

Evidence for quantum mind = 0 = Falsified by Max Tegmark 2000

Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

What evidence do you have that can overcome this and provide a better explanation the a biochemical reason for it. Could you deny that chemicals affect the mind and behaviour? Could you deny that hormones affect behaviour?

Biology operates on a classical level of mechanics. There is no evidence to the contrary.

[Mattshark]

It also takes a massive leap to assume Science has already provided us with all the answers.

See above to see that quantum mind has no evidence, doesn't work mathematically and requires ignoring a hell of a lot of biochemical evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. I am just telling you how it is.

Is our knowledge really sufficient to say one way or the other?

Yes.

[lightly]

It also takes a massive leap to assume Science has already provided us with all the answers.

Mattshark, on 31 August 2009 - 10:41 AM, said:

I think it takes massive leap to assume the mind works on a quantum scale because the brain certainly doesn't.

Interesting topic.. to say the least! Personally i often ponder the question.. What is Life... Life itself.. and considered posting the question in a topic.. purdalan suggested to me that to do so would risk civil war between creationists and scientists.. She's undoubtedly right. Once again,just personally, i view evolution as creation.. in slow motion.. but back to the main point of the possibility of mind/thoughts/intent affecting matter... The following, in brackets, is borrowed from website.. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/14/9628 . [ Japanese scientist Dr. Masaru Emoto ..discusses the way in which frozen water crystals seem to respond with pleasant formations to beautiful music; speeches by famous humanists such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and exposure to pictures and encouraging words written on containers.

He claims they form unattractive formations in response to unpleasant words. His belief that God is expressed in water, which has a life of its own, is a component of both Shinto belief and the beliefs of aboriginal peoples.

"Beautiful thoughts can transform things so they become beautiful," says Dr. Emoto. ]

As far as i know, which isn't far... science has no explanation for Life.. itself... science can measure physical manifestations of life such as chemical reactions and electrical impulses but cannot explain the basic force... Life. Please consider very very old seeds ..that when planted bring forth a living plant. Was the life IN the seed during it's time being dormant? or.. does life enter the seed from wherever life comes from? People consider life after death for people.. but ,often, not plants or animals ... the rationale being that people have souls and plants and animals don't?... believers in reincarnation being the most frequent exception? I believe there are published studies of plants ,given the same care otherwise, growing better when spoken to with loving intent as opposed to plants ignored. If true.. would that be an example of mind ,or possibly spirit, having a quantum effect on matter? i'm just asking...

On a personal note, i think a tree is just as aware of us as we are of it.. and that awareness can exist without a brain.. awareness residing in the life spirit.. I mean ..look at me!!! and I like to lump awareness,spirit,life all together and believe that the life in a tree or snail or me is EXACTLY the same force in different containers. thanks.

Edited August 31, 2009 by lightlyy

[Mattshark]

Mattshark, on 31 August 2009 - 10:41 AM, said:

I think it takes massive leap to assume the mind works on a quantum scale because the brain certainly doesn't.

Interesting topic.. to say the least! Personally i often ponder the question.. What is Life... Life itself.. and considered posting the question in a topic.. purdalan suggested to me that to do so would risk civil war between creationists and scientists.. She's undoubtedly right. Once again, personally, i view evolution as creation.. in slow motion.. but back to the main point of matter being infused with or created by spirit.. (if that is one of the questions in this topic) and the possibility of mind/thoughts/intent interacting with matter... The following, in brackets, is borrowed from website.. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/14/9628 . [ Japanese scientist Dr. Masaru Emoto ..discusses the way in which frozen water crystals seem to respond with pleasant formations to beautiful music; speeches by famous humanists such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and exposure to pictures and encouraging words written on containers.

He claims they form unattractive formations in response to unpleasant words. His belief that God is expressed in water, which has a life of its own, is a component of both Shinto belief and the beliefs of aboriginal peoples.

"Beautiful thoughts can transform things so they become beautiful," says Dr. Emoto. ]

As far as i know, which isn't far... science has no explanation for Life.. itself... science can measure physical manifestations of life such as chemical reactions and electrical impulses but cannot explain the basic force... Life. Please consider very very old seeds ..that when planted bring forth a living plant. Was the life IN the seed during it's time being dormant? or.. does life enter the seed from wherever life comes from? People consider life after death for people.. but ,often, not plants or animals ... the rationale being that people have souls and plants and animals don't?...

believers in reincarnation being the most frequent exception? I believe there are published studies of plants ,given the same care otherwise, growing better when spoken to with loving intent as opposed to plants ignored. If true.. would that be an example of mind ,or possibly spirit, having a quantum effect on matter? i'm just asking... thanks.

Masaru Emoto: Not a scientist and I really cannot stress that enough. His qualifications are not from a recognised university and his methodology deliberately picks and chooses the images he likes. Nothing remote scientific about what he does. Also he mixes his religion into science, that is pure pseudo-science and when anyone does that, they can be dismissed as academic frauds.

Anything with spirit in it requires conjecture and therefore it is not a scientific conclusion and no speaking to plants could not justifiably be put down to quantum mechanics, that would not be scientific again because it is jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence and it is not parsimonious. It is far more likely in that case they are just enjoying the extra CO2 being breathed on them. There is nothing to suggest it is anything other than this.

Life scientifically speaking is a complex collection of chemical reactions. We know exactly why they still grow. Nothing unexpected or unusual about it.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Mattshark

[Black Red Devil]

See above to see that quantum mind has no evidence, doesn't work mathematically and requires ignoring a hell of a lot of biochemical evidence.

I'm not assuming anything. I am just telling you how it is.

The way I understand how it is Scientists still haven't got a clue, AMONGST OTHER THINGS:

Why a particle, e.g. an electron, cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision, i.e. the more accurately you measure the position, the less accurately you can measure the momentum - The Uncertainty Principle

A particle can violate the laws of classical mechanics by passing through a potential barrier whose energy is higher than the kinetic energy of the particle - Quantum Tunneling

It's possible to link together two quantum particles—photons of light or atoms, for example—in a special way that makes them effectively two parts of the same entity. You can then separate them as far as you like, and a change in one is instantly reflected in the other. This odd, faster than light link, is a fundamental aspect of quantum science - Quantum Entanglement

Unfortunately for the biological world, a microbiological world exists in the same universe and until Scientists have all the answers on Quantum particles, the way they react and their correlation with the biological environment then nothing can be dismissed.

Its easy to debunk everything and call it Pseudo Science and try to sound intelligent but the difference between Science and Pseudo Science is that Scientific Theories provide us with observable, empirical and measurable evidence. Pseudo Science doesn't only relate to Religious theories on creationism. Therefore you could call the whole Quantum world Pseudo Scientific considering most of it isn't empirical. The pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involves elements of intuition and guesswork. Without such we would still be walking around with candles.

To go back to the "mind theory". Look up Anton Zeilinger (elected by the British newspaper New Statesmen as to be amongst the "10 people who could change the world") and "A Foundational Principle of Quantum Mechanics". We might be creating the world by just observing it.

My link

Trying to refer to ONLY proven Scientific theories without considering the element of undiscovered scientific possibilities is similar to Giordano Bruno being burnt at the stake by the Inquisition because of his unaccepted cosmological theories as being "too far out there" at the time. Think about it!

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The way I understand how it is Scientists still haven't got a clue, AMONGST OTHER THINGS:

Why a particle, e.g. an electron, cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrary precision, i.e. the more accurately you measure the position, the less accurately you can measure the momentum - The Uncertainty Principle

A particle can violate the laws of classical mechanics by passing through a potential barrier whose energy is higher than the kinetic energy of the particle - Quantum Tunneling

It's possible to link together two quantum particles—photons of light or atoms, for example—in a special way that makes them effectively two parts of the same entity. You can then separate them as far as you like, and a change in one is instantly reflected in the other. This odd, faster than light link, is a fundamental aspect of quantum science - Quantum Entanglement

Unfortunately for the biological world, a microbiological world exists in the same universe and until Scientists have all the answers on Quantum particles, the way they react and their correlation with the biological environment then nothing can be dismissed.

Its easy to debunk everything and call it Pseudo Science and try to sound intelligent but the difference between Science and Pseudo Science is that Scientific Theories provide us with observable, empirical and measurable evidence. Pseudo Science doesn't only relate to Religious theories on creationism. Therefore you could call the whole Quantum world Pseudo Scientific considering most of it isn't empirical. The pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involves elements of intuition and guesswork. Without such we would still be walking around with candles.

To go back to the "mind theory". Look up Anton Zeilinger (elected by the British newspaper New Statesmen as to be amongst the "10 people who could change the world") and "A Foundational Principle of Quantum Mechanics". We might be creating the world by just observing it.

My link

Trying to refer to ONLY proven Scientific theories without considering the element of undiscovered scientific possibilities is similar to Giordano Bruno being burnt at the stake by the Inquisition because of his unaccepted cosmological theories as being "too far out there" at the time. Think about it!

Said very well.

The firing of the neurons of our brains most certainly exist in the same Universe as do the particles of light and electrons that are the study of the science of quantum physics. They are not two seperate studies or two seperate Universes but are one and the same.

In no scientific study of quantum physics can the observer (or Mind) be discounted in the experiment in order to find scientific truth. Whether it be the firing of a neuron being watched under the microspope or a firing of neuron that is doing the watching they are both one and the same apart of the experiment.

Only Life can view Life scientifically.

[Mattshark]

Said very well.

The firing of the neurons of our brains most certainly exist in the same Universe as do the particles of light and electrons that are the study of the science of quantum physics. They are not two seperate studies or two seperate Universes but are one and the same.

In no scientific study of quantum physics can the observer (or Mind) be discounted in the experiment in order to find scientific truth. Whether it be the firing of a neuron being watched under the microspope or a firing of neuron that is doing the watching they are both one and the same apart of the experiment.

Only Life can view Life scientifically.

Did either of you bother to read the links? Clearly not. Do you know why people are studying to find a unification theory? A great deal of the universe doesn't work on a quantum scale, it works by classical mechanics. Do you think QM has replaced CM? Read the bloody links, both of you.

[Black Red Devil]

Do you know why people are studying to find a unification theory?

LOL. This is the question you should be asking yourself considering you're the one who is dismissing anything Quantum.

A great deal of the universe doesn't work on a quantum scale, it works by classical mechanics. Do you think QM has replaced CM? Read the bloody links, both of you.

I'm truly amazed that somebody that has a tiny bit of scientific knowledge, like I presume you believe you have, still can't see the correlation between quantum and classical. You are truly convinced they belong to two seperate universes don't you? The Unified theory or the Theory of Everything is all about finding laws that apply to both Quantum Physics and the Fundamental Forces, Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong and Weak Force. One doesn't work without the other. Nobody here is saying anything about "replacing". You're the one who is debunking anything Quantum just because classical scientists haven't been able to make sense of it yet.

Edited September 1, 2009 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[Mattshark]

LOL. This is the question you should be asking yourself considering you're the one who is dismissing anything Quantum.

Yeah it is disgraceful how I used evidence an everything. Especially from such a rubbish university as MIT. Not like Max Tegmark is a top level guy in the field. Oh wait, he is.

I'm truly amazed that somebody that has a tiny bit of scientific knowledge, like I presume you believe you have, still can't see the correlation between quantum and classical. You are truly convinced they belong to two seperate universes don't you? The Unified theory or the Theory of Everything is all about finding laws that apply to both Quantum Physics and the Fundamental Forces, Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong and Weak Force. One doesn't work without the other. Nobody here is saying anything about "replacing". You're the one who is debunking anything Quantum just because classical scientists haven't been able to make sense of it yet.

I am a scientist. I know what abuse of QM is. I know it doesn't apply to everything in the universe and I know a lot more about biology and quantum biology is for most part rejected because is not only conjectured but goes against the actual evidence (especially concepts like quantum mind, who's proponents can't even make work mathematically). Other claims of quantum biology have not been replicable.

I'm am not debunking quantum, I'm debunking its misapplication when it is applied to an inappropriate level like a macroscopic one.

[Black Red Devil]

Yeah it is disgraceful how I used evidence an everything. Especially from such a rubbish university as MIT. Not like Max Tegmark is a top level guy in the field. Oh wait, he is.

Quite some pedigree for a nobody attending a "rubbish" University!

http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/zeilinger/CV_Anton_Zeilinger_Homepage_2.pdf

I'm am not debunking quantum, I'm debunking its misapplication when it is applied to an inappropriate level like a macroscopic one.

That's fine! Since you claim to be a Scientist. How would the strange display of particles at the Quantum level be "appropriately applied" to CM?

Hay, who knows, if you answer this one you might be in for the Nobel Prize, considering no scientist has been able to explain it as yet!!

[Mattshark]

Quite some pedigree for a nobody attending a "rubbish" University!

http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/zeilinger/CV_Anton_Zeilinger_Homepage_2.pdf

Think you missed the sarcasim there. I posted a paper by Max Tegmark which falsifies quantum mind because neurons fir far too slow to have a quantum effect, it would decohere before the neuron could fire (I think it was to slow by a factor of about a million). There is a massive amount evidence for biochemical behavioural control to through hormones and pheromones.

That's fine! Since you claim to be a Scientist. How would the strange display of particles at the Quantum level be "appropriately applied" to CM?

Hay, who knows, if you answer this one you might be in for the Nobel Prize, considering no scientist has been able to explain it as yet!!

I never said I knew and I am not a physicist, but I can tell now that QM is misapplied if you try it in the macroscopic world of biology.

So basically there is no evidence supporting quantum mind and a hell of a lot that doesn't support the concept.

[lightly]

Masaru Emoto: Not a scientist and I really cannot stress that enough. His qualifications are not from a recognised university and his methodology deliberately picks and chooses the images he likes. Nothing remote scientific about what he does. Also he mixes his religion into science, that is pure pseudo-science and when anyone does that, they can be dismissed as academic frauds.

Anything with spirit in it requires conjecture and therefore it is not a scientific conclusion and no speaking to plants could not justifiably be put down to quantum mechanics, that would not be scientific again because it is jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence and it is not parsimonious. It is far more likely in that case they are just enjoying the extra CO2 being breathed on them. There is nothing to suggest it is anything other than this.

Life scientifically speaking is a complex collection of chemical reactions. We know exactly why they still grow. Nothing unexpected or unusual about it.

Thank you Mattshark for correcting me on Mr. Emoto NOT being a scientist.. i never know what i'm talking about .. but i do go on don't i? anyway.. as for LIFE being nothing more than a complex collection of chemical reactions.... hmmmm. But you do say "anything with spirit in it requires conjecture" so you believe in spirit?... seems like quite a leap of faith i'll shush now.

[Black Red Devil]

I never said I knew and I am not a physicist, but I can tell now that QM is misapplied if you try it in the macroscopic world of biology.

So basically there is no evidence supporting quantum mind and a hell of a lot that doesn't support the concept.

Well, I beg to differ and believe the strange and inexplicable particle reactions found in the Quantum world does not allow us to become skeptical and debunk all theories.

[lightly]

Thank you Mattshark for correcting me on Mr. Emoto NOT being a scientist.. i never know what i'm talking about .. but i do go on don't i? anyway.. as for LIFE being nothing more than a complex collection of chemical reactions.... hmmmm. But you do say "anything with spirit in it requires conjecture" so you believe in spirit?... seems like quite a leap of faith i'll shush now.

Except to say.. lol... allow me to compare the the spiritual realm (where i believe LIFE is truly generated.). to a magnet that i can't see.. because,in front of the magnet is a piece of paper, let me compare the piece of paper to the physical plane , the let me compare chemicals ,and all of their interactions , to paper clips stuck to the paper... my observation would be that life is paper clips? forgive me..

[Mattshark]

Thank you Mattshark for correcting me on Mr. Emoto NOT being a scientist.. i never know what i'm talking about .. but i do go on don't i? anyway.. as for LIFE being nothing more than a complex collection of chemical reactions.... hmmmm. But you do say "anything with spirit in it requires conjecture" so you believe in spirit?... seems like quite a leap of faith i'll shush now.

I don't personally believe in spirit.

Well, I beg to differ and believe the strange and inexplicable particle reactions found in the Quantum world does not allow us to become skeptical and debunk all theories.

You are free to believe that, it is not science though once you go that way.