Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

What is the biocentric universe theory ?

39 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zep73

Finally Occam's very sharp blade can be put to use with duality! I'm with Campbell on this one. The explanation is simple and clinical. Reality is virtual.
That also explains how the universe could exist for 13.8 billion years without consciousness. And the best part: No invisible magic deities are needed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
32 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Finally Occam's very sharp blade can be put to use with duality! I'm with Campbell on this one. The explanation is simple and clinical. Reality is virtual.
That also explains how the universe could exist for 13.8 billion years without consciousness. And the best part: No invisible magic deities are needed!

Occam's razer "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" is contrary to the simulation hypothesis.  You've swapped magical deities with "posthuman" creators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
14 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Occam's razer "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" is contrary to the simulation hypothesis.  You've swapped magical deities with "posthuman" creators.

Not necessarily. The goal of science is not to explain anything beyond our universe, only the universe itself. So if you take away "posthuman" creators, it becomes very simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
11 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Not necessarily. The goal of science is not to explain anything beyond our universe, only the universe itself. So if you take away "posthuman" creators, it becomes very simple.

No, the reason god isn't a scientific explanation is because it's unverifiable.  Same for your "posthumans".  This simulation hypothesis assumes the universe is running on some advanced hardware.  Ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

No, the reason god isn't a scientific explanation is because it's unverifiable.  Same for your "posthumans".  This simulation hypothesis assumes the universe is running on some advanced hardware.  Ridiculous.

And yet it solves so many mysteries and explains so many facts and phenomena. That is the reason why so many researchers are taking it serious.
The probability alone (based on a few "ifs") is sky high.

You don't like it? Fine! But that doesn't change the facts that it's both possible and likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

And yet it solves so many mysteries and explains so many facts and phenomena. That is the reason why so many researchers are taking it serious.
The probability alone (based on a few "ifs") is sky high.

You don't like it? Fine! But that doesn't change the facts that it's both possible and likely.

New age creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
59 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

New age creationism.

Labeling things to show contempt is often a sign of fear.
And I get it. Being told everything you thought was real, isn't, is spooky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
23 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Finally Occam's very sharp blade can be put to use with duality! I'm with Campbell on this one. The explanation is simple and clinical. Reality is virtual.
That also explains how the universe could exist for 13.8 billion years without consciousness. And the best part: No invisible magic deities are needed!

Explain OP to me like I'm 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
14 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Explain OP to me like I'm 5.

There is an old experiment called the "double slit experiment". It shows that the particles that make up the universe are in an undetermined wave state of potential, unless they are observed. Then they become physical objects. Or at least they behave that way.
Skeptisk used to think, that it was the instruments somehow interfering with the particles, but a later experiment called the "quantum eraser experiment", proved that it was the observer, and not the instruments.

This can be interpreted as "consciousness creating its own reality". That is what biocentrics is about.
A less spiritual approach to it, could be that reality is just a 3D projection. That reality is virtual. Made in a very powerful computer.

And may I add:
People who reject both those ideas, are ignorant to the proof from the quantum eraser experiment. Or they are just waiting for a better explanation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

There is an old experiment called the "double slit experiment". It shows that the particles that make up the universe are in an undetermined wave state of potential, unless they are observed. Then they become physical objects. Or at least they behave that way.
Skeptisk used to think, that it was the instruments somehow interfering with the particles, but a later experiment called the "quantum eraser experiment", proved that it was the observer, and not the instruments.

This can be interpreted as "consciousness creating its own reality". That is what biocentrics is about.
A less spiritual approach to it, could be that reality is just a 3D projection. That reality is virtual. Made in a very powerful computer.

And may I add:
People who reject both those ideas, are ignorant to the proof from the quantum eraser experiment. Or they are just waiting for a better explanation.

Quantum woo.  The quantum eraser has been done with computers acting as the observer. Either you invoke some convoluted solution like "von Neumann chains" or accept consciousness isn't affecting the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
37 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Quantum woo.  The quantum eraser has been done with computers acting as the observer. Either you invoke some convoluted solution like "von Neumann chains" or accept consciousness isn't affecting the outcome.

It's true. The simulation hypothesis used to be viewed as woo by the science elite, and was, until the last few years, ostracised from the scientific community. But not anymore. Your view is outdated, and your resentment is based primarily in personal opinions and ignorance, not facts.

If we are simulated, we are most likely software. Advanced code imitating real people. So the argument, that computers have the same affect on the QEE as people, sounds logical.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Labeling things to show contempt is often a sign of fear.
And I get it. Being told everything you thought was real, isn't, is spooky.

You've merely replaced gods with aliens or "posthumans".  The simulation hypothesis undermines the scientific method, no longer can we trust the evidence because it's subject to whoever is running the simulation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

It's true. The simulation hypothesis used to be viewed as woo by the science elite, and was, until the last few years, ostracised from the scientific community. But not anymore. Your view is outdated, and your resentment is based primarily in personal opinions and ignorance, not facts.

If we are simulated, we are most likely software. Advanced code imitating real people. So the argument, that computers have the same affect on the QEE as people, sounds logic.

If we are simulated, the universe could've started yesterday and all our memories and experiments are preprogrammed information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

And may I add:
People who reject both those ideas, are ignorant to the proof from the quantum eraser experiment. Or they are just waiting for a better explanation.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter one way or another.  If we are simply in a generated universe we are trapped within the confines of that systems rules, those rules being the Physics that drive our universe.  Whoever or whatever created that system does not matter one iota, the environment beyond the system is unknowable and unreachable.

Its a thought experiment nothing more.  As for consciousness creating the universe, same rules apply, this is more of a reach though in my mind.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

You've merely replaced gods with aliens or "posthumans".  The simulation hypothesis undermines the scientific method, no longer can we trust the evidence because it's subject to whoever is running the simulation.

I disagree. I love science just as much, as I did before that hypothesis became my favorite ontology.
I still admire and respect the scientific method, and use it whenever I can. My heroes are still scientists.
The only difference for me is that I have answers. Answers scientists have been searching for for hundreds of years. Or at least I have answers until I find evidence (via the scientific method) that those answers are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

If we are simulated, the universe could've started yesterday and all our memories and experiments are preprogrammed information.

That would demand a sh!tload of work. I find that very unlikely. It would be a 1000 times easier to just let it all run its own course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
10 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

As for consciousness creating the universe, same rules apply, this is more of a reach though in my mind.

Agree. That's the reason I wrote that Occam's razor could be put to use with duality.
If we have to decide if it's a simulation, or if we create our own reality, I think the simulation is the simplest, most reasonable explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
40 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The quantum eraser has been done with computers acting as the observer.

Would you mind providing a source? I would love to read more about that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

Whenever I hear "simulated universe".  . , I Always wonder ,   where do the 'simulators' live?

     ...as for the universe being a result of mind..especially,some sort of Universal mind,  .that actually ,somehow, makes more sence to me than a simulation.  

I tend to believe that some sort of "consciousness" may be more fundamental than physicality.  

* * ****************

Ok, we all know that I Don't know so...I'm just asking this...Doesn't "science" lean toward the idea that matter arises from something more fundamental?  Virtuality of some sort? Popping in and out of existence?             Whoa!  Did I just say "Virtuality" !?! :lol:

Edited by lightly
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
20 minutes ago, lightly said:

Whenever I hear "simulated universe".  . , I Always wonder ,   where do the 'simulators' live?

What will really blow your mind is when you discover that our universe is simulated by an alien who’s own universe is the result of their own consciousness.  Or that we are just a spec in an endless chain of simulations within simulations.

Its all great speculation, but at some point you have to draw the line and admit that ultimately it is just making s***t up to fit a narrative.  It’s kind of like what flat earthers do, start with a idea based on naive observation and make the rest up to fill the gaps, like gravity isn’t real, the sky is a glass dome, NASA guards the ice walls.

When we start finding the name Slartibartfast written in glaciers then I might pay more attention.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
5 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

What will really blow your mind is when you discover that our universe is simulated by an alien who’s own universe is the result of their own consciousness.  Or that we are just a spec in an endless chain of simulations within simulations.

That alien is using our universe as a car battery.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
10 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I disagree. I love science just as much, as I did before that hypothesis became my favorite ontology.
I still admire and respect the scientific method, and use it whenever I can. My heroes are still scientists.
The only difference for me is that I have answers. Answers scientists have been searching for for hundreds of years. Or at least I have answers until I find evidence (via the scientific method) that those answers are wrong.

You have unsupported theories, not even a real hypothesis.  A hypothesis needs to be capable of being disproven, otherwise it suffers confirmation bias. How do you disprove a simulation?

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
10 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

That would demand a sh!tload of work. I find that very unlikely. It would be a 1000 times easier to just let it all run its own course.

You already believe they can simulate billions of consciousnesses and quantum physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
10 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Would you mind providing a source? I would love to read more about that!

I was mistaken, turns out it was the delayed choice experiment.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610241v1

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2007/02/14/315.5814.966.DC1/Jacques.SOM.pdf

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.