|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: A pretty cool theory but it wouldn't take it to seriously. Any metaphysics theory shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Biocentrism isn't a metaphysical theory.
Pretty interesting that anytime anyone suggests that there is more to reality than what we can see with our own two eyes, despite the fact that our own two eyes can only interpret a very small percentage of whats really going on on the electromagnetic scale, that it is automatically dismissed as 'metaphysics'.
See whats happening here?
People are subscribing to a theory (materialism) as absolute truth.
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Biocentrism [Re: hTx]
#19140564 - 11/15/13 11:21 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well that would be a mistake wouldn't it. No one knows the answers to these kinds of questions. I certainly have my own suspicions but frankly the more I learn the less certain I feel about anything and everything (only a slight exaggeration) . The difficulty for most humans (it seems) is that craving for certainty in a universe mostly beyond our understanding. It makes us take stances often that are not solid ground. It's to be expected though it's one of our least appealing attributes.
I do think the advice to not take any of it too seriously is good advice. Maybe just not for the reasons some say that.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes

Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
Re: Biocentrism [Re: hTx]
#19140604 - 11/15/13 11:31 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: claims to have evidence that life and biology are central towards reality and that life creates the universe, not the other way around.
Any time a human claims they know what is "central towards reality" or something similar I just have to laugh.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: Biocentrism [Re: hTx]
#19141071 - 11/15/13 02:10 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: A pretty cool theory but it wouldn't take it to seriously. Any metaphysics theory shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Biocentrism isn't a metaphysical theory.
Pretty interesting that anytime anyone suggests that there is more to reality than what we can see with our own two eyes, despite the fact that our own two eyes can only interpret a very small percentage of whats really going on on the electromagnetic scale, that it is automatically dismissed as 'metaphysics'.
See whats happening here?
People are subscribing to a theory (materialism) as absolute truth.
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
I'm not subscribing to any theory, in fact i do think there is more to reality then meets the eye. You can't marry any of your models for reality just entertain them... after all they are only models and we are only people.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Biocentrism [Re: hTx]
#19141105 - 11/15/13 02:24 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
White Beard said:
Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
White Beard said: That was so poorly written. It just kept repeating the same few sentences over and over.
Also, I hope you are aware that observation changes the results because the instruments used to measure subatomic particles effect the particles themselves. Electrons are so small that photons, which have no mass, can still effect the movement of the electron.
the instruments as in our own eyes/brain
Nope, sorry. I suggest you read up on the double slit experiment rather then wasting your time with this pseudoscience.
 I suggest you read up on quantum theory. Yes, the instruments used to measure subatomic particles do effect the particles themselves, but this isn't the reason why a system exists in 'yes, maybe, no' until observed.
Take shrodingers cat for example.
Quantum physics informs us that a system exists in superposition — that is, in all possible states — until we observe that it is only in one specific state. The act of observation happens with or without instruments.
That thought experiment was used to point out a contradiction in the model for QM at the time. It's suppose to be absurd on purpose.
From wiki on schrodingers cat:
"The thought experiment illustrates quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the "Schrodinger's Cat" thought experiment remains a typical touchstone for limited interpretations of quantum mechanics."
Quote:
What your suggesting is that quantum physics is based off a mistake caused by photons effecting the measurement...which is a pretty wild claim.
Didn't say that. I was saying the reason there is uncertainty in observing subatomic particles is that the instruments used to measure the particles effect the particles. Particles don't randomly change when we look at them like we have magic powers.
from wiki on uncertainty principle:
"The principle is quite counter-intuitive, so the early students of quantum theory had to be reassured that naive measurements to violate it, were bound always to be unworkable. One way in which Heisenberg originally illustrated the intrinsic impossibility of violating the uncertainty principle is by using an imaginary microscope as a measuring device.[56]
He imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it.
Problem 1 – If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore, a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately. But the photon scatters in a random direction, transferring a large and uncertain amount of momentum to the electron. If the photon has a long wavelength and low momentum, the collision does not disturb the electron's momentum very much, but the scattering will reveal its position only vaguely. Problem 2 – If a large aperture is used for the microscope, the electron's location can be well resolved (see Rayleigh criterion); but by the principle of conservation of momentum, the transverse momentum of the incoming photon and hence, the new momentum of the electron resolves poorly. If a small aperture is used, the accuracy of both resolutions is the other way around"Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: A pretty cool theory but it wouldn't take it to seriously. Any metaphysics theory shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Biocentrism isn't a metaphysical theory.
Pretty interesting that anytime anyone suggests that there is more to reality than what we can see with our own two eyes, despite the fact that our own two eyes can only interpret a very small percentage of whats really going on on the electromagnetic scale, that it is automatically dismissed as 'metaphysics'.
See whats happening here?
People are subscribing to a theory (materialism) as absolute truth.
Sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
Science constantly finds out that there is more to reality then what meets our eyes. Do you really think materialists don't believe in IR and UV light, subatomic particles, and far away planets because they can't been seen with the naked eye? We aren't being hard heads with this whole evidence thing, it's just that there is no way to talk about something if there is no evidence. Any other talk without evidence is wild speculation and not science. Since no test has been devised for this biocentric universe, it's still in the speculation phase.
|
Gorlax



Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 6,697
Last seen: 5 days, 15 hours
|
|
Okay, somehow we got like 20 theories mashed up into this.
Quantum mechanics describes particles that are very small. Yes, it is known that observing the particle changes it. This is the elementary part of it.
Quantum mechanics makes sense (electrons and other subatomic particles follow these principles to the TEE) but the connection between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is what the big problem is.
^
These really don't change the idea of bio-centrism.
Bio-centrism meaning life is the center of the universe, the reverse is the universe is the center.
As I was trying to point across earlier these arguments are simply paradoxes.
Observing life as an ANT, is drastically different from that of a lion!
The ant has no clue that an exterior view point is present b/c lack of knowledge.
In conclusion
It's futile...
We have so much to learn still
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Biocentrism [Re: Gorlax]
#19141230 - 11/15/13 03:00 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There's so many theories mashed up because new agers love to throw in some complicated science they don't understand when they run out of arguments.
|
PocketLady



Registered: 01/18/10
Posts: 1,773
|
Re: Biocentrism [Re: hTx]
#19141341 - 11/15/13 03:29 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Lol, that article is a complete joke. But then those who are familiar with British newspapers would know that that pretty much sums up Daily Mail. There is not one single fact in that article that proves anything. Can't believe they even have the nerve to use that word.
-------------------- Love is from the infinite, and will remain until eternity. The seeker of love escapes the chains of birth and death. Tomorrow, when resurrection comes, The heart that is not in love will fail the test. ~ Rumi The day we start giving Love instead of seeking Love, we will have re-written our whole destiny. ~ Swami Chinmayanada Saraswatir
|
|