Conjecture Friday, June 12, 2009 . This is a SciScoop post by David Bradley
What happened before the Big Bang? What is consciousness? How can we explain quantum weirdness?
These are all big questions, but in Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, well-known scientists Robert Lanza (biologist) and Bob Berman (astronomer) argue that the universe is created within our minds. It all sounds a little far fetched at first, but this is no mystical, new age pseudoscience.
What they are suggesting is that objective reality, the “external” world we imagine exists is exactly that…imaginery. We each create in our brains our individual view of the world on the basis of simple electrical inputs from our senses, our sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. Logically, the universe for us only exists as the interpretation by our brains of these electrical inputs. Until the point we make the “observation” the universe is simply a vast cloud of fuzzy probability.
Looked at this way, the notions of time and space dissolve, although in Einstein’s theory of relativity they do not exist as entities anyway but simply a mathematical framework on which to hang gravity. Quantum effects such as wave-particle duality and spooky action at a distance too are nothing more, nor nothing less, than artefacts of how we observe the world.
Lanza and Berman summarize their hypothesis in seven principles.
To be honest, I doubt anyone is actually going to take this theory seriously, but it does offer food for thought. There is definitely something odd about the universe we perceive, that’s beyond doubt. But, why the whole universe should be as it is because of organic molecular soup on a tiny blue planet, orbiting an average star in an everyday kind of galaxy is beyond this book (and beyond any other book to boot). Cracked conjecture or alternative paradigm to religion and modern physics?
Previously: « Silver Surfer Franchise
SciScoop Science News is a forum for news, views and controversial conjectures. Please contact us if would like to submit a guest post.
2 Responses to Biocentrism Mind Field
Thomas Goodman
June 16th, 2009 at 3:23 am
While one could write pages detailing the problems with this “theory”, it is simply not worth the effort. I am certainly not a closed-minded reductionist; I welcome coherent new ideas and theories.
This fuzzy rehash of extant ideas is most reminiscent of populist misinterpretations of physics woven into a nebulous, somewhat New Age philosophy by hacks like Deepak Chopra.
If you’re looking for something that provokes rational thought and/or delivers some true insight, look elsewhere.
David Bradley
June 16th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I think fundamentally there is some validity to what the authors say, in that quantum mechanics shows us that the observation is all important to what is observed and that relativity shows us that time and space are not physical realities but simply variables in Einstein’s equations. I don’t think this “theory” has any less validity than string “theory” though, which seems to be such a house of cards (that isn’t even sitting on a card table) as to be highly unlikely irrespective of its “beauty”…