Science & Mathematics Infinity

[Wally Carter]

And Max Planck has something to do with Biocentrism?

I was merely pointing out the origin of the term.

LTFU!

 

[Wally Carter]

That raises many questions not the least of which is "does a large part of the universe cease to exist if it is being perceived by a bacteria" or does it still exist?

It exists for the bacteria.

Another thing which occurs to me fairly quickly is that no known life forms exist which are not composed of elements formed in first and second generation stars. There are no known life forms which are constituted solely of hydrogen. Every other element was formed within stars or in the death throws.

The stars must have come first.

Why?

No consciousness, no stars.

 

[Malifice]

Another thing which occurs to me fairly quickly is that no known life forms exist which are not composed of elements formed in first and second generation stars. There are no known life forms which are constituted solely of hydrogen. Every other element was formed within stars or in the death throws.

The stars must have come first.

Stop discounting yourself from the experiment!

Have you considered the fact that the stars exist because they have to?

Without stars we couldnt exist right? We are the only things that we (from our own perspective) know 100% to exist. The rest we accept on faith.

So because we need stars to exist - they do.

We make sense of our 'universe' by collapsing wave functions and probabilities into things we call matter and atoms.

In the Biocentric model none of it really exists of course. Its simply our method of rationalising the 'outside' of our consciousness.

In the Classical model, the Universe would still be here regardless of the existence of life, as a barren but self sustaining three (+1) dimensional plane of existence.

Which of course is a ridiculous theory as it totally disregards the only one thing that we all know for certain... The existence of the self.

 

[Pie eyed]

Stop discounting yourself from the experiment!

Have you considered the fact that the stars exist because they have to?

Without stars we couldnt exist right? We are the only things that we (from our own perspective) know 100% to exist. The rest we accept on faith.

So because we need stars to exist - they do.

We make sense of our 'universe' by collapsing wave functions and probabilities into things we call matter and atoms.

In the Biocentric model none of it really exists of course. Its simply our method of rationalising the 'outside' of our consciousness.

In the Classical model, the Universe would still be here regardless of the existence of life, as a barren but self sustaining three (+1) dimensional plane of existence.

Which of course is a ridiculous theory as it totally disregards the only one thing that we all know for certain... The existence of the self.

Sorry I can't buy that.
If as you say we (meaning the sole conscious being) are the centre and creating force of the universe then there is no need for anything else to exist at all. Once we exist then everything else is a waste of energy.

In your model, I stress.

I'll stick to the idea we are the result rather than the seed.

It's all nicely philosophical, but as you know I feel there is absolutely no need for philosophy to explain the universe, life and everything.
Philosophy is just purposeful day dreaming as far as I am concerned.

 

[Wally Carter]

It's all nicely philosophical, but as you know I feel there is absolutely no need for philosophy to explain the universe, life and everything.
Philosophy is just purposeful day dreaming as far as I am concerned.

Without philosophy there would be no science.

 

[Malifice]

If as you say we (meaning the sole conscious being) are the centre and creating force of the universe then there is no need for anything else to exist at all.

There is for us to exist.

You cant have a 'you' without some point of reference can you? Otherwise existence would just be nothing.

I'll stick to the idea we are the result rather than the seed.

Then how do you explain the double slit light experiment? Or the results of entanglement/ Schrodinger cat thought experiment? Or the uncertainty principle? Or the emerging fatal flaws contained withing the Classical paradigm?

It's all nicely philosophical, but as you know I feel there is absolutely no need for philosophy to explain the universe, life and everything.

Thats exactly what Philosophy does. Seek to determine the meaning/ mysteries/ operation of the universe. Science is but one of the Philosophies. Currently it is one of the more successful philosophies.

Philosophy is just purposeful day dreaming as far as I am concerned.

How terribly ignorant of you.

You realize science is just one of the (many) philosophies in existence, and its not the 'end game' right?

Both the Scientific method and, more specifically, Classical physics has a finite shelf life?

It wont (and cant) explain the universe forever. It will be replaced in time.

 

[Pie eyed]

Without philosophy there would be no science.

Don't agree, but I reckon my interpretation of philosophy and yours may be different. I differentiate from thought and philosophy.
Of course I could be wrong but not to me.

 

[Malifice]

Don't agree, but I reckon my interpretation of philosophy and yours may be different. I differentiate from thought and philosophy.
Of course I could be wrong but not to me.

That might very well be your definition, but its not the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]

The following branches are the main areas of study:

• Metaphysics is the study of the nature of being and the world. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.

A range of academic subjects have emerged to deal with areas which would have historically been the subject of philosophy. These include psychology, anthropology and science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Science is but one of many different philosphies. All of which are quite valid and useful.

 

[Wally Carter]

Of course I could be wrong but not to me.

Welcome to biocentrism.

 

[Pie eyed]

That might very well be your definition, but its not the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Science is but one of many different philosphies. All of which are quite valid and useful.

Pretty much what I expected.
It is the pondering of life and consciousness and why it exists. I rank philosophy with the arts. Very interesting, sometimes enormously fulfilling but in the end not necessary for life or the universe to exist.

I however have no problem with a universe which does not require me to function.

This is really just another "religion" trying to answer the big "why" question.

I don't see any need. There is no why there just "is".

 

[Malifice]

Pretty much what I expected.
It is the pondering of life and consciousness and why it exists.

No. Its the logical and rational study of the universe, the mind, existence and knowledge itself.

I however have no problem with a universe which does not require me to function... There is no why there just "is".

You realise this position has a name. The Philosophy of Realism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Realism sometimes means the position opposed to the 18th-century Idealism, namely that some things have real existence outside the mind. Its standard meaning is the doctrine that abstract entities corresponding to universal terms like 'man' or 'table' or 'red' actually exist (e.g. for Plato in a separate realm of Ideas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

You have reached your current view on 'reality' by (unknowingly perhaps) applying the (currently dominant) philisophical model of Realism... whether you acknowedge it or not.

Youve actually unwittingly directly applied a philosophy to your understanding of the universe. Like it or not - you are a philospher

By contrast, I am somewhat of an idealist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Idealism is the epistemological doctrine that nothing can be directly known outside of the minds of thinking beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Both theories (Idealism and Realism) have merit. Its a personal choice.

Its a little naive to suggest that Philosophy isnt directly relevant to the discussion though! Indeed our competing philosphies are central to the discussion!

This is really just another "religion" trying to answer the big "why" question.

Absolutely not. It was Philosophy (and Philosophers) that led to the enlightenment and the rubbishing of the medieval paragdim.

 

[Malifice]

Welcome to biocentrism.

Touche

 

[Pie eyed]

Your cup of tea..fine.

 

[Mean Muggin]

I was merely pointing out the origin of the term.

LTFU!

Wasn't a personal attack Wally, was just pointing out I'm a layman. I'm guessing LTFU is putting me in my place?

For the last couple of weeks I've been trying to grapple Biocentrism, but there are too many unanswered questions for me to convert. For instance, no one remembers their early years, yet the world is and everything in it exists whilst we are at first coming to terms with it. Hard to explain, but if we conjure up adults whom we give the responsibility of raising us, why do we need infancy?

And also if we exist in the first place, but have created a world to exist in, how did we manage to establish a world in the first place? Again, hard to explain, but a bit like the chair Neo sits in to live in the matrix. Where is our life force established to begin creating worlds?

 

[Malifice]

For the last couple of weeks I've been trying to grapple Biocentrism, but there are too many unanswered questions for me to convert. For instance, no one remembers their early years, yet the world is and everything in it exists whilst we are at first coming to terms with it.

How do you you know that you had early years if you dont remember them? Someone told you? You saw photos?

And why do we have to understand the universe in order for it to exist?

Remember - the only thing you can ever know 100% to be true is the fact that you exist.

The rest could be one big illusion. Including your infancy.

Hard to explain, but if we conjure up adults whom we give the responsibility of raising us, why do we need infancy?

We dont need infancy. Its just a perception.

And also if we exist in the first place, but have created a world to exist in, how did we manage to establish a world in the first place?

What came first the chicken or the egg?

Personally I hate that question as it fails to pose the other two logical possibilities... being chicken, egg, neither or both.

And FWIW Id answer this question thus:

All 4 possibilities exist as coexistent probability waves until acted upon by an observer at which point three of the possibilities collapse. All 4 options are correct - it just depends on the perspecive of the observer.

Again, hard to explain, but a bit like the chair Neo sits in to live in the matrix. Where is our life force established to begin creating worlds?

No harder to explan than how was the world established to begin creating life forms.

Both theories come up with a blank.

 

[Pie eyed]

Pointless mentally circle work going on now.

This whole thread is a figment of someone's imagination.

The downfall of biocentrism....

The less sense anyone else can make of it the more the purveyors claim it's validity.

The emperors new clothes anyone?

 

[Malifice]

The downfall of biocentrism....

Is what exactly?

 

[Wally Carter]

this whole thread is a figment of someone's imagination.

The downfall of biocentrism....

lol.