Science & Mathematics Infinity

[Malifice]

My point kind of was if we are here to question existence and the universe we shouldn't really dismiss all methods of inquiry about existence and the universe.

If someone asks "what is a bus" I'm sure you would not go off on some wildly hypothetical explanation which involves your mind implanting it into a universe of your own construction.

How is life creating and sustaining the universe any more bizarre or improbable than the universe creating and sustaining life?

 

[Pie eyed]

My point kind of was if we are here to question existence and the universe we shouldn't really dismiss all methods of inquiry about existence and the universe.



How is life creating and sustaining the universe any more bizarre or improbable than the universe creating and sustaining life?

I think you're missing my point.
My point is if you are discussing a specific question about a subject you understand or have a grasp of, say the formation of stars and the actual mechanisms which are involved with someone who has asked you to explain said mechanisms, it is not always necessary to explain the entire process which you believe created the universe at the same time explaining in depth every related theory which led you to this decision.
Sometimes it's ok to just explain your answer to the question like this.

Stars are born within the clouds of dust and scattered throughout most galaxies. A familiar example of such as a dust cloud is the Orion Nebula, revealed in vivid detail in the adjacent image, which combines images at visible and infrared wavelengths measured by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope. Turbulence deep within these clouds gives rise to knots with sufficient mass that the gas and dust can begin to collapse under its own gravitational attraction. As the cloud collapses, the material at the center begins to heat up. Known as a protostar, it is this hot core at the heart of the collapsing cloud that will one day become a star. Three-dimensional computer models of star formation predict that the spinning clouds of collapsing gas and dust may break up into two or three blobs; this would explain why the majority the stars in the Milky Way are paired or in groups of multiple stars.
As the cloud collapses, a dense, hot core forms and begins gathering dust and gas. Not all of this material ends up as part of a star — the remaining dust can become planets, asteroids, or comets or may remain as dust.

Then we don't have to read volumes of, not necessarily uninteresting but more often than not irrelevant and divergent, opinion and argument.

Does that make more sense.

 

[Malifice]

I think you're missing my point.

No, I get your point.

Its just when discussing topics such as infinity (and the universe), don't you think its a little silly to restrict ourselves to just scientific theory and empiricism and discount other methods of inquiry on the topic?

We have a lot more tools in the shed than simply scientific theory (so to speak).

 

[Mean Muggin]

Up to chapter 3 of "A Brief History of Time". Still trying to get my head around space time but it's very well written.

An interesting part I found was that Hawking states early on, that even though the Big Bang was beginning, it doesn't mean that there was nothing before that, but whatever it was is meaningless....whatever that means. But I finally now grasp the concept of how there can be no absolute time. The twin paradox is bloody amazing, the fact that if one twin remained on earth and the other travelled in a spaceship at NEARLY the speed of light, when the space twin returned he would look younger.

I also found the part that if the sun died we would not know about it for 8 minutes (or hours I can't remember, but think it was 8 minutes).

Spacetime is very hard to get your head around though.

 

[Pie eyed]

No, I get your point.

Its just when discussing topics such as infinity (and the universe), don't you think its a little silly to restrict ourselves to just scientific theory and empiricism and discount other methods of inquiry on the topic?

We have a lot more tools in the shed than simply scientific theory (so to speak).

I am really looking at it from the point of view of the question asker.

 

[Mean Muggin]

More or less yes. Rather than life evolving independently inside the universe, the universe is more or less a byproduct of life.

The universe exists in a state of infinite superposition and probability (it is simultaneously everything and everywhere at once) until it is interacted with by a living 'observer'... whereupon all the other probabilities collapse and the universe is 'ironed out' to conform to a fixed (and comprehensable) state.



Think of it this way:

Even if everything else around you is false/ a hologram/ a mirage/ the matrix/ an illusion/ a grand trick or some giant ****ing lie... YOU must exist to be being lied to.

Cogito ergo sum.

The only universal truth is that you exist. Everything else you accept (more or less) on faith.

From your own perspective of course.



Go back and check the dual slit experiment. Its a trip out.

Not only does observation of light change it from matter to energy and back (simply by observing it), observation can do so retrospectively (i.e. time travel).

Its pretty freaky.

One of my favourite quotes so far is when some bishop said to Newton that all things material are an illusion, and some doctor upon hearing this yelled out "I refute it thus" and stubbed his toe on a rock.

It's a hard philosophy to grasp.

 

[Mean Muggin]

The scientific background to the biocentrism idea is described in Robert Lanza’s book Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, in which Lanza proposes that biology and not physics is the key to understanding the universe. Vital to his proposal is the idea that the universe does not really exist unless it is being observed by a conscious observer. To support this idea, Lanza makes a series of claims:

(a) Lanza questions the conventional idea that space and time exist as objective properties of the universe. In doing this, he argues that space and time are products of human consciousness and do not exist outside of the observer. Indeed, Lanza concludes that everything we perceive is created by the act of perception.

The intent behind this argument is to help consolidate the view that subjective experience is all there is. However, if you dig into what Lanza says it becomes clear that he is positioning the relativistic nature of reality to make it seem incongruous with its objective existence. His reasoning relies on a subtle muddling of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. Take, for example, his argument here:

“Consider the color and brightness of everything you see ‘out there.’ On its own, light doesn’t have any color or brightness at all. The unquestionable reality is that nothing remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness. Consider the weather: We step outside and see a blue sky - but the cells in our brain could easily be changed so we ’see’ red or green instead. We think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. In any case, you get the point. This logic applies to virtually everything.“
There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an experiential truth - that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of objective reality. No physicist will deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are responsible for color are characteristics of the natural universe. Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

 

[Malifice]

(a) Lanza questions the conventional idea that space and time exist as objective properties of the universe. In doing this, he argues that space and time are products of human consciousness and do not exist outside of the observer. Indeed, Lanza concludes that everything we perceive is created by the act of perception.

This reviewer acknowledges the theory is that all space and time are products of the observer. Yet for some reason he fails to apply this to critique that follows.

There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an experiential truth - that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of objective reality. No physicist will deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are responsible for color are characteristics of the natural universe. Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.

That said, it is impossible to falsify a completely subjective theory of the universe.

 

[Malifice]

One of my favourite quotes so far is when some bishop said to Newton that all things material are an illusion, and some doctor upon hearing this yelled out "I refute it thus" and stubbed his toe on a rock.

It's a hard philosophy to grasp.

Thats exactly what you would expect a hologram to say.

 

[Mean Muggin]

Thats exactly what you would expect a hologram to say.

You have to admit it smacks of a God complex though.

And the main thing that I find confusing about biocentrism is that if everything is all internal through the act of perception, then what is external to us to be able to project holograms (for lack of a better word).

I'll stop about Biocentrism now, as with everything, my curiosity will never be satisfied. But its been a facinating read. Cheers

 

[Malifice]

I am really looking at it from the point of view of the question asker.

Fair point.

I do see a fair few people citing the Classical (Newtonian) Model of the universe around.

As long as people are aware that there are some pretty massive holes starting to form in it.

As in some massive holes. Requiring more and more fudging of numbers.

Much like we used to do with the Ptolemy and his model of the universe. It had earth at the centre and the planets revolving around Earth.

When people began to notice problems (The planets seem to get closer and further away in addition to orbiting the earth) he simply modified the model so that planets orbited a point in space AND the earth:

As we learnt more and were able to see further away, holes started to appear in the maths, so obscure formulas were developed to plug those holes.

It wasnt untill 2000 years after Ptolemy that we finally worked out that we were wrong and the universe and planets dont revolve around the Earth at all.

I see similar problems with Newtonian 'Classical' theories. Einstien already had to plug a few holes in Newtons theories withe special relativity etc. Every day more and more 'adjustments' have to be made to keep Classical theories relevant and applicable. Adding extra dimensions, obscure particles that no-one can find and multiple universes are just a start of some of the adjustments.

It just astounds me why we dont just acknowledge them as wrong and come up with a different model.

 

[Malifice]

You have to admit it smacks of a God complex though.

I agree.

'Hard' biocentrism suggests that only the individual (from that individuals perspective) 'projects' his/ her own universe. Technically thats also the most logical version of the theory as it does not require the leap of faith that other beings are also sentient and thus capable of independent existence (the 'shared' universe model - my personal preference).

And the main thing that I find confusing about biocentrism is that if everything is all internal through the act of perception, then what is external to us to be able to project holograms (for lack of a better word).

You're touching on my own vew of the model. That the universe is a result of the shared collective consiousness of all living things.

 

[Pie eyed]

Fair point.

I do see a fair few people citing the Classical (Newtonian) Model of the universe around.

As long as people are aware that there are some pretty massive holes starting to form in it.

As in some massive holes. Requiring more and more fudging of numbers.

Much like we used to do with the Ptolemy and his model of the universe. It had earth at the centre and the planets revolving around Earth.

When people began to notice problems (The planets seem to get closer and further away in addition to orbiting the earth) he simply modified the model so that planets orbited a point in space AND the earth:

As we learnt more and were able to see further away, holes started to appear in the maths, so obscure formulas were developed to plug those holes.

It wasnt untill 2000 years after Ptolemy that we finally worked out that we were wrong and the universe and planets dont revolve around the Earth at all.

I see similar problems with Newtonian 'Classical' theories. Einstien already had to plug a few holes in Newtons theories withe special relativity etc. Every day more and more 'adjustments' have to be made to keep Classical theories relevant and applicable. Adding extra dimensions, obscure particles that no-one can find and multiple universes are just a start of some of the adjustments.

It just astounds me why we dont just acknowledge them as wrong and come up with a different model.

All totally true but I still concede that to understand the "current" best explanation you don't need to understand every paper ever written either supporting or not the main theory.

I personally, and I consider I have a pretty good grasp the universe, genetics and so on, have never once even considered entering a detailed examination of Biocentrism. I have never seen the need for it to help me understand and it simply complicates the logical. Someone else mentioned Ocams Razor. I believe in this far more than any long winded, excrutiatingly complex and unlikely exercise in imagination.
Other than when I had had a few bongs as a younger man and mused that everyone else could in fact be just in my mind. Really I think this is pretty common and even though you argue that such theories could be falsifiable I doubt it very much. The same principles which you think will prevent the universe allowing anyone to destroy it woill prevent any evidence of the factual existence of an abstract theory the likes of Biocentrism.

Say i am walking in a forest and my 18 yo daughter asks "which of these trees is an oak?"
I look up and right in front of me is an Oak tree. Unfortunately one of the lower branches is missing. In the far distance I spy another Oak.

Do I point out the Oak in front of us, even though technically it is not a "complete" Oak tree or do I take her on the long journey to the faraway Oak which when we arrive turns out be very similar to an Oak but with dozens of branches missing?

 

[Pie eyed]

A bit of research into "Biocentrism" has already convinced me that while it is a very interesting concept it is, bluntly highly speculative and for the most part Philosophical in nature. It is very hard to see how any of it's key components could ever be critically tested. The theory could only be tested by the individual conceiving the universe and only he/she or it could possibly get a result which the rest of us, hypothetically only elements of the testers conception anyway, would have to take the observations on faith.

This smacks of faith. The religios type of faith.

I only extend my faith to concepts which are testable and able to be replicated and open to peer review.

Sorry if you have issue with that but that is how I evaluate everything I decide to believe.

 

[Malifice]

A bit of research into "Biocentrism" has already convinced me that while it is a very interesting concept it is, bluntly highly speculative and for the most part Philosophical in nature. It is very hard to see how any of it's key components could ever be critically tested.

Actually its far more falsifiable and scientific than the classical model.

To start with, you are already using 'faith' when you are acknowledging the universe exists. Remember the only thing you know for sure is YOU exist.

You're prepared to accept I (and everything else) exist on faith alone. You can never know for sure.

Also consider all current theories of the universe are based on or around Quantum theory/ mechanics. Either 'stand alone' theories, or theories that attempt to combine quantum theory with classical thoery (in vain in my opinion). And quantum theory clearly places the observer (i.e. 'you') at the center of (and vital to) the experiment.

You cant have an experiment without an observer after all can you?

This sounds counter intuitive to the 'classical' physicist, but when you think about it it makes total sense.

The question of 'if a tree falls in a forest does it still make a sound' takes on a special meaning to a quantum physicist

I only extend my faith to concepts which are testable and able to be replicated and open to peer review.

But it is falsifiable to peers. From their perspective.

 

[Malifice]

All totally true but I still concede that to understand the "current" best explanation you don't need to understand every paper ever written either supporting or not the main theory.

Its not a question of understanding convergent theories.

Dawkins said something quite amusing when challenged on his strong (militant almost) atheist stance. He was critiqued for dismissing theology without ever really reading about it or understanding it.

His response was something along the lines of "I don't need to be a master in leprechanism in order to refute the existence of leprechauns do I?"

I personally, and I consider I have a pretty good grasp the universe, genetics and so on, have never once even considered entering a detailed examination of Biocentrism. I have never seen the need for it to help me understand and it simply complicates the logical.

Most Quantum theories (and theories with roots in quantum mechanics) are completely illogical. As a matter of fact they are often completely crazy... dealing with cats in boxes, quantum suicide machines, many worlds (and many universes), extra dimensions, retro causality, paradoxes and other oddities.

Someone else mentioned Ocams Razor. I believe in this far more than any long winded, excrutiatingly complex and unlikely exercise in imagination.
Other than when I had had a few bongs as a younger man and mused that everyone else could in fact be just in my mind. Really I think this is pretty common and even though you argue that such theories could be falsifiable I doubt it very much. The same principles which you think will prevent the universe allowing anyone to destroy it woill prevent any evidence of the factual existence of an abstract theory the likes of Biocentrism.

Im not saying Classical theory is shit. Its just (in my opinion) about to be falsified out of existence. In around a hundred years or so we will look back on Newtonian physics and our current 'classical' understanding of the world and be unable to comprehend that we used to view the world that way.

Imagine living in the Dark ages. Stars are holes in the sky that lead to heaven (and their light is heaven radiating out). The world is flat. The earth is at the center of the universe (And that's also why things fall downwards), Planets are spinning around their own central point in the sky, man looks the way he does as God made him in his own image, people get sick due to an imbalance of one of three fluids (black bile, white bile and blood)... the list goes on.

This is not just what people think. This is actually how the world is to people.

Compare that to the classical period (today). Or the period of animism and polytheism beforehand.

Its hard to comprehend, but current classical science is not the 'end game.' It will be replaced with something so alien you (and I) cant even really comprehend it right now.

I believe we are seeing it emerge (in its infant stages) with Quantum mechanics and quantum theory. Its called a paradigm shift.

For a discussion see:

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

Its quite a detailed and interesting read.

Say i am walking in a forest and my 18 yo daughter asks "which of these trees is an oak?"
I look up and right in front of me is an Oak tree. Unfortunately one of the lower branches is missing. In the far distance I spy another Oak.

Do I point out the Oak in front of us, even though technically it is not a "complete" Oak tree or do I take her on the long journey to the faraway Oak which when we arrive turns out be very similar to an Oak but with dozens of branches missing?

How about trying to explain the color red to a man who has been blind his whole life?

Or disassembling a car piece by piece, a few pieces per day, and replacing those pieces with new ones that you bought from a shop.

After you have finished in a few years, is it still the same car? If not, at what point does it become a different car? If it is the same car, what happens when you reassemble the pieces you have removed into a second car?

Then consider every few years the human body completely replaces all its cells. Every few years there is a completely new person walking around. Are you still the same person?

The above are all thought exercises. If they sound weird (or even impossible in the case of explaining red to a blind man) then that just goes to show you the inherent problems we have in defining 'truth'. And that's before we even get off the starting block!

 

[Pie eyed]

Dawkins is very astute when handling fools though.

Ian Plimer is another who wields an excellent retort.

 

[Malifice]

Dawkins is very astute when handling fools though.

Ian Plimer is another who wields an excellent retort.

Agree.

My major fault with Dawkins is his militant atheism. Makes him no better than the militant theists IMO.

 

[Wally Carter]

I don't know, just sounds a bit too much like the matrix to me.

I would logically deduce that "The Matrix" has borrowed from quantum principles and not the other way around.

The term and concept known as "The Matrix" was first coined by Max Planck in 1944.

 

[Mean Muggin]

The term and concept known as "The Matrix" was first coined by Max Planck in 1944.

And Max Planck has something to do with Biocentrism?

 

[Pie eyed]

Father of Quantum Physics.

 

[Malifice]

And Max Planck has something to do with Biocentrism?

Father of Quantum Physics.

And Quantum physics is central to the biocentric universe.

At least biocentrisms starting point is the only thing we all know (irrefutably) to exist (the self).

The other models (a universe independent of the self) rely on a little to much faith for mine.

 

[Pie eyed]

And Quantum physics is central to the biocentric universe.

At least biocentrisms starting point is the only thing we all know (irrefutably) to exist (the self).

The other models (a universe independent of the self) rely on a little to much faith for mine.

OK. I'm finally going to bite re: Biocentricity.

I'm making an assumption here from a base of very little idea (and interest at the moment).

Is biocentrism the concept that the universe is created from and/or by life as opposed to life being a creation of the universe?

 

[Malifice]

Is biocentrism the concept that the universe is created from and/or by life as opposed to life being a creation of the universe?

Basically yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)

Lanza's theory of biocentrism has seven principles:

1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
4. Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
5. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)

It seems odd at first, but is both scientificly falsifiable and (ironicaly) more logical than a universe existing 'outside' and independent of life.

 

[Pie eyed]

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?

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.