Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Biocentrism [Re: Cognitive_Shift] * 1
    #19140534 - 11/15/13 11:11 AM (10 years, 3 months ago)

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSleepwalker
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite 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.



:rolleyes:
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorlax
Male


Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 6,697
Last seen: 5 days, 15 hours
Re: Biocentrism [Re: White Beard]
    #19141213 - 11/15/13 02:57 PM (10 years, 3 months ago)

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhite 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePocketLady
 User Gallery


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* bummer....a McKenna prediction's already wrong
( 1 2 3 all )
question_for_joo 6,932 51 03/20/05 03:19 PM
by Gomp
* I'm confused about Biocentrism learningtofly 1,654 1 08/05/09 02:54 AM
by jivJaN
* The GOD particle Scarfmeister 1,767 12 08/21/04 08:54 PM
by trendal
* particle and field felix4life 576 2 06/07/06 06:03 PM
by fireworks_god
* The approaching revolution in particle physics distortopia 1,285 16 09/14/05 02:55 PM
by IgnatiusJReilly
* Learned Helplessness, Biocentrism?! Jordainio 731 5 01/06/13 06:18 AM
by Vaipen
* Is it possible to slow the rate at which electrons orbit an atoms nucleus ?
( 1 2 all )
Brainstem 1,404 23 08/13/10 08:15 AM
by Brainstem
* Momentum cube talk 664 9 11/02/08 01:12 AM
by DieCommie

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,322 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 13 queries.