Biocentrism ?

[exchemist]

Well, it's an interpretation by a substantial scientist that seems to answer many questions. He also infers it's very helpful to science in sort of a Copernicus way. I don't understand "metaphysically arid". It seems to me it takes the supernatural out of metaphysical.


It would be interesting to ask Lanza a few questions. I'm not sure I agree with all of his assertions, because he avoids the elephant in the room. He seems to be going in the right direction though.


Of course, since he is denying objective reality altogether, that would be true. However, thought evolves, no question. I think his findings are probably very useful, but a bit scary. I wonder how early seafarers felt, sailing towards the horizon, assuming they would fall into an abyss.

I fail to see how it can help science to put forward a hypothesis that is by definition untestable and which implies that making predictive models of physical reality (the core function of science) is a waste of time.

 

[WalterTrull]

I fail to see how it can help science to put forward a hypothesis that is by definition untestable and which implies that making predictive models of physical reality (the core function of science) is a waste of time.

I believe he feels he did test his hypothesis. You apparently disagree with his analysis of the results. I don't believe he is denying scientific predictability, just that since there is no physical reality, only the perception of it, that we should not be locked into a "flat earth" approach to science.

 

[exchemist]

I believe he feels he did test his hypothesis. You apparently disagree with his analysis of the results. I don't believe he is denying scientific predictability, just that since there is no physical reality, only the perception of it, that we should not be locked into a "flat earth" approach to science.

How did he test it?

 

[WalterTrull]

How did he test it?

Well, here's one.

 

[exchemist]

Well, here's one.

That seems to be just a test of gravitational lensing. I can't see how it shows what he claims it shows. It looks like a clumsy version of the famous double slit experiment. That des not show that photons and electrons are not real, however. It merely shows that matter does not behave entirely like our concepts of "particles" and "waves", which is something quite different.

I'd also like to see some justification for his claim about what Eddington and Jeans thought. I've never come across this.

I begin to wonder if this guy has gone mad, actually.

 

[Regiomontanus]

That seems to be just a test of gravitational lensing. I can't see how it shows what he claims it shows. It looks like a clumsy version of the famous double slit experiment. That des not show that photons and electrons are not real, however. It merely shows that matter does not behave entirely like our concepts of "particles" and "waves", which is something quite different.

I'd also like to see some justification for his claim about what Eddington and Jeans thought. I've never come across this.

I begin to wonder if this guy has gone mad, actually.

Hello.

Yes, either mad or just playing a joke on someone and never took the page down.

Peace

 

[WalterTrull]

I'd also like to see some justification for his claim about what Eddington and Jeans thought. I've never come across this.

This any help?

 

[syo]

According to biocentrism theory, after we die we kind of "re-boot somewhere else".
Is biocentrism "compatible" with religions that believe in reincarnation/rebirth ?

I don't know what ''biocentrism'' is. But rebirth is definitely real. We are part of neverending rebirths.

 

[WalterTrull]

rebirth is definitely real. We are part of neverending rebirths

I don't disagree, but there's the nagging "how". I've come across dozens of possible scenarios. I do recognize the apparent cyclical nature of the universe. Wheels within wheels. Wish I knew a little more. Not sure re-incarnation makes sense, but maybe.

 

[syo]

I don't disagree, but there's the nagging "how". I've come across dozens of possible scenarios. I do recognize the apparent cyclical nature of the universe. Wheels within wheels. Wish I knew a little more. Not sure re-incarnation makes sense, but maybe.

It's easy. Pure chemical reactions Atoms and molecules.

 

[exchemist]

This any help?

Yes, thanks for this. It will be a long read but worthwhile I think. From skimming it, I do not think Eddington is denying the existence of a physical world, so much as stressing the limitations of physics in grasping it ("pointer readings" etc), but I will need to read it properly before being sure what he is really arguing.

One has to keep in mind it was written in 1927, when both relativity and QM were a new and shocking disruption to the mechanistic, absolute mindset of c.19th physics. But writing it under the influence of that shock may have given him some good insights that we have lost, I suppose.

 

[WalterTrull]

Yes, thanks for this. It will be a long read but worthwhile I think. From skimming it, I do not think Eddington is denying the existence of a physical world, so much as stressing the limitations of physics in grasping it ("pointer readings" etc), but I will need to read it properly before being sure what he is really arguing.

One has to keep in mind it was written in 1927, when both relativity and QM were a new and shocking disruption to the mechanistic, absolute mindset of c.19th physics. But writing it under the influence of that shock may have given him some good insights that we have lost, I suppose.

I glad you're enjoying it. I hadn't seen anything of it but excerpts before. Now I'm reading the whole thing and having a very good time at it.

 

[WalterTrull]

I glad you're enjoying it. I hadn't seen anything of it but excerpts before. Now I'm reading the whole thing and having a very good time at it.

OK, now I'm starting to skim. Man, he does go on.

 

[exchemist]

OK, now I'm starting to skim. Man, he does go on.

Yes. The bit about "pointers" on a dial is the relevant bit I think.

I reckon our friend Henry has got the wrong end of the stick. I think Eddington is simply saying that physics can only make models based on what we can observe, and since modern physics says there are limits to what we can know about a system by observation (uncertainty principle etc), then whatever the ultimate reality may be, we cannot presume to know it entirely - all we can do is make models that are human mental constructions, incompletely reflecting what reality actually is.

But I do not see that denies the existence of a reality "out there", as Henry suggests.

 

[WalterTrull]

Yes. The bit about "pointers" on a dial is the relevant bit I think.

I reckon our friend Henry has got the wrong end of the stick. I think Eddington is simply saying that physics can only make models based on what we can observe, and since modern physics says there are limits to what we can know about a system by observation (uncertainty principle etc), then whatever the ultimate reality may be, we cannot presume to know it entirely - all we can do is make models that are human mental constructions, incompletely reflecting what reality actually is.

But I do not see that denies the existence of a reality "out there", as Henry suggests.

Still reading, er quasi-skimming. Your assumptions may be correct about what was said, don't know yet. I just get excited when well known folk from the science community seem to be corroborating theories I've held for quite a while. We'll see I guess.