Quantum theory proves what??

Khaos wrote: I doubt any real scientist would make the claim of disproving such a thing.

At least not without alot of evidence to back it up.

Which was my point, it seems people only make the scientific claim one way....

Which is ultimately, as I see it , wishful thinking.

Also, think as small and as fine as you want, but just as you cannot fit God in those gaps, neither can you fit consciousness just because you want it there.

I not so sure about that maybe consciousness is in those gaps? You can call it god if you want, I don't know.

Wait and see what real scientist come up with next and after that and after that and......

I find little evidence for the assumption that science will ever answer scientifically or factually questions of the nature of consciousness.

Do you think that such a thing as infinity exists? How about zero? Your answers to these questions aligns you very much for or against this article's hypothetical extrapolation of quantum theory.

I have never been able to understand how we can submit to the idea of the conservation of energy and then turn right around and insist that everything tends toward entropy. In fact I have come to recognize the Force as that balance which exists between the two vectors of entropy and order. I think that the logical conclusion this line of reasoning leads to me agree with the overall tenor of this article, but I don't know if quantum mechanics is the final answer or explanation to it all, in fact I am almost certain it is not; I know a lot of people use the arm-chair version of the theory to support their own 'hunches' about reality and that is both annoying and dangerous. But I don't think that the fact some people abuse the theory for their own ends means we should dismiss out of hand the possibilities that the implications of the theory may turn out to be in line with many of tenets of biocentrism as it is presented in the article.

I think using the words and thinking about "quantum theory" is a good thing in attempting to understand stuff as anything for now. I find if captivating and thought provoking but still limited. Given enough time we'll come up with new theories.

If we always think and ask question well find answers, leading to new questions, leading to new knowledge ad infinitum.

It's a beautiful thing.

Targeran Arynal wrote: I find little evidence for the assumption that science will ever answer scientifically or factually questions of the nature of consciousness.

There is a number of things they said the same thing about. Many even to this day think of things as mysteries that have been solved centuries ago (anyone else thinking of O'Reilly and the tides? ). So, anyway, while you may be referring to answered or unanswered questions, I have reasons to think that if we are ever to have useful and reliable answers at all, they will come from a discipline that employed the scientific method to get those answers.

Do you think that such a thing as infinity exists? How about zero? Your answers to these questions aligns you very much for or against this article's hypothetical extrapolation of quantum theory.

Depends on what you mean by "exist". Both are concepts neither of which are represented within as of yet conceived of reality. However, the truth or falsehood of the article is a fact to be discovered, not a Truth to be aligned with or against. I will believe or disbelieve the claim depending on whether it is believable and more likely true than not judging by the presented evidence, or disbelieve it. My position on infinity or zero doesn't add nor take away anything from that evidence.

I have never been able to understand how we can submit to the idea of the conservation of energy and then turn right around and insist that everything tends toward entropy.

I happen to know why that is. Feel free to contact me about it, if you like, I'll explain. And don't worry, I won't math-assault you

In fact I have come to recognize the Force as that balance which exists between the two vectors of entropy and order.

Not sure if you're using order in the physical sense, but it seems that at least with entropy you do. Entropy isn't a vector (it is a scalar instead). And in the physical sense neither is order (it is a boolean value rather).

But I don't think that the fact some people abuse the theory for their own ends means we should dismiss out of hand the possibilities that the implications of the theory may turn out to be in line with many of tenets of biocentrism as it is presented in the article.

It isn't so much that the scientific community dismisses biocentrism. Rather, it doesn't accept it. And the reasons for that are not with other people using quantum magic to justify their nonsense. That's not how science works. Rather, every claim has to stand or fall on its own merits. Biocentrism hardly accounts for any phenomenon unaccounted for and makes no falsifiable predictions. It cannot be tested, therefore it cannot be accepted. Even if there were no (other) woo peddlers out there, the flaws with biocentrism would still be the same. The world would be a better place though. :lol:

concur with gisteron. i too read 'biocentrism' as part of my apprenticeship, and wrote a chapter by chapter analysis and review as i did so. bottom line: dr. lanza's collection of theories, guesswork, wishful thinking and personal anecdotes cannot conceivably be called a scientific text. i disagreed with it from the very first line ('our understanding of the universe has reached a dead end', a sentiment that has no doubt echoed through the centuries) to almost every single following assertion. examples of poor science abounded, from cherry picking data from disreputable journals to dr. lanza's layman's grasp on quantum mechanics being used as the basis for this entire endeavor. master akkarin called my review 'an interesting obituary', or words to that effect.

I find if captivating and thought provoking but still limited.

Given that those who are the best in this field have not discovered its limits, how can you claim it is limited?

Many people talk about limits without ever even having seen them, or pushed past them, but then make statements about them as if it comes from a place of knowledge, or wisdom, when it in fact doesnt.

Even if we do come up with new theories, which no doubt we will, in regards to one thing or another, you are hardly qualified to talk of the limits of something without even knowing them yourself.

Without venturing to the next step you will definitely not get to the one beyond that.

I am also wondering to what benefit there is in seeing limits everywhere.

Not unlike when you said atoms are limiting, this statement would seem wise, except when you look around and see all that survey and beyond what you can see is comprised of them.

You speak of the limits of atoms, and are but a speck, on a speck in the middle of a universe that is comprised of them in so many different ways that you could hardly fathom, and certainly have not seen the limits of.

I said limited because at some point it/they will be elapsed.

Everything is unlimited but our attempts to understand are limited, getting better, but still we have limits or would it be better if I said our limits are expanding as we gain knowledge? (I hope)

There is more to the stuff of the cosmos than atoms.

I know my limits. Again, I hope.

]There is a number of things they said the same thing about. Many even to this day think of things as mysteries that have been solved centuries ago (anyone else thinking of O'Reilly and the tides? ). So, anyway, while you may be referring to answered or unanswered questions, I have reasons to think that if we are ever to have useful and reliable answers at all, they will come from a discipline that employed the scientific method to get those answers.[/quote]
You are certainly welcome to your opinion but opinion it must remain. This assertion is in no way falsifiable, nor is it scientifically or otherwise proven by evidence. Also, there are conversely many things which at one time were accepted as and/or expected to be proven but that we now know are not at all factual. The reasoning here cuts both ways.

Gisteron wrote: Depends on what you mean by "exist". Both are concepts neither of which are represented within as of yet conceived of reality. However, the truth or falsehood of the article is a fact to be discovered, not a Truth to be aligned with or against. I will believe or disbelieve the claim depending on whether it is believable and more likely true than not judging by the presented evidence, or disbelieve it. My position on infinity or zero doesn't add nor take away anything from that evidence.

I would be interested to hear your definition of 'exist,' and if it would be different from the common understanding of the word. There may be a truth to be discovered, or that has been discovered, but again scientific method will eave you empty-handed at the end of the day here. It does matter what you think about the reality of infinity (and therefore it's opposite which is implied, namely zero) because inifinity allows for everything, including the reality of anything that the human consciousness can conceive; interestingly enough infinity allows for the non-existence of the same. Infinity I think has been proven to exist mathematically (see asymptote, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote).

Gisteron wrote: I happen to know why that is. Feel free to contact me about it, if you like, I'll explain. And don't worry, I won't math-assault you

There may be models that purport to explain the conflict but certainly none that have proven apodictict.

Gisteron wrote: Not sure if you're using order in the physical sense, but it seems that at least with entropy you do. Entropy isn't a vector (it is a scalar instead). And in the physical sense neither is order (it is a boolean value rather).

Entropy is universally understood to be a measure of disorder. If entropy is indicative of the movement toward thermodynamic equilibirum (maximum entropy), or stasis, then order is the opposite. There cannot be more of one than the other in the universe, they are only abstract imaginative measurements along a spectrum which ultimately forms the lemniscate (the lemniscate thing is more of an opinion of mine to be truthful, but not one without reason), as opposed to a straight line extending infinitely in both directions ; just as there is no such thing as an actual tangible inch, it is only the concept of a unit of a certain length.

Gisteron wrote: It isn't so much that the scientific community dismisses biocentrism. Rather, it doesn't accept it. And the reasons for that are not with other people using quantum magic to justify their nonsense. That's not how science works. Rather, every claim has to stand or fall on its own merits. Biocentrism hardly accounts for any phenomenon unaccounted for and makes no falsifiable predictions. It cannot be tested, therefore it cannot be accepted. Even if there were no (other) woo peddlers out there, the flaws with biocentrism would still be the same. The world would be a better place though. :lol:

I have no special place in my heart for biocentristic theory, really I am not even all that familiar with it, but this which you have stated here is no more than equivocation.

OMG My head is killing me! I need a dictionary and three asprin... :laugh: