Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Nosso lar 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11781
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
Quote:
Biocentrism states that there is no independent external universe outside of biological existence. -- source

That is quite the claim. I can see why some criticize biocentrism as non-falsifiable. You would have to be biologically non-existent to prove that the external universe exists without you. Being biologically non-existent sounds a lot like being dead. But hey, if there is life after death, then you could conceivably be biologically non-existent but still be existing in some non-biological form, and then perhaps you could indeed prove that the universe exists without you, thus proving biocentrism is total bunk, and simultaneously destroying its "proof" that there is life after death.

At the very least, biocentrism does have some entertainment value.

Quote:
Lanza has said that he intends to publish aspects of biocentrism in peer-reviewed scientific journals. -- source

That should go a long way in helping to justify the claim that "Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world."

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:11 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
Why is it that we have to be told that Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world? Is it so we will give him the benefit of the doubt, or so we will suspend our established convictions?

I could as easily say the same about Dawkins, although Dawkins hasn't really excelled in his particular field of science, unlike Lanza who most certainly has! :D

So biocentrism says our biology creates our own personal Matrix, which we perceive as reality. I have to wonder why we need our senses in that case, for if everything occurs within our heads, why do we need to interface with the outside world, which we supposedly are creating in the first place?

The bigger question is: Is experience reality? Do we really create reality, or do we simply experience a mental virtualization of reality?

And with this we are going to prove there is life after death? This I gotta see.... :lol:

You obviously didn't study all of the posted material here, but I welcome your rebuttals to the conclusions made by Lanza concerning some of the documented scientific experiments covered in Youtude interview #3!


At the very least, biocentrism does have some entertainment value.

Don't you think it also entertaining that you're using Wikipedia's conclusion of Lanza's work instead of lanza's actual work?

Lanza has said that he intends to publish aspects of biocentrism in peer-reviewed scientific journals. -- source
That should go a long way in helping to justify the claim that "Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world."

Again you attack the messenger not the message, who are you and what have you done to Chico?

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:33 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11781
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
andywight wrote:
I could as easily say the same about Dawkins, although Dawkins hasn't really excelled in his particular field of science unlike Lanza, who most certainly has! :D

Dawkins was not introduced to me as one of the most respected scientists in the world. As I recall, I heard him being interviewed while walking past a TV, and what he was saying stopped me in my tracks and transfixed me for the rest of the interview. When it was over, I said out loud, "That guy is a genius" and I resolved to read his new book, "The Ancestor's Tale". After reading it and many of his other books, I decided on my own that the respect he was due was considerable.

andywight wrote:
You obviously didn't study all of the posted material here, but I welcome your rebuttals to the conclusions made by Lanza concerning some of the documented scientific experiments covered in the interview in Youtude #3 when and if you do!

Video #3 I have yet to watch, due to its length. I have instead been perusing the material found here to get a quicker exposure to Lanza's ideas. His "proof" that life exists after death -- because death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world -- is absurd. His other evidence that pulls from unresolved results and enigmas in science is likewise pretty silly, resting on explanations that are clearly based on ignorance, of which humanity is well supplied. Take for instance his use of the two particles that are claimed to communicate instantaneously on opposite sides of the galaxy. Since when do we have observers on opposite sides of the galaxy? How do we know what the particles are doing, unless we observe them, the act of which affects the particles, perhaps in identical ways, making it appear as if they communicated? Could it be that our explanation that they communicated is based on our woefully inadequate understanding of the nature of the universe?

Lanza's hands-on experience with cloning was impressive, to be sure, but his foray into his new "theory of everything" smacks of the same idiocy that religion is renowned for, i.e. the convenient explanation that has little basis in reality. Whereas once God was the explanation for reality, now the observer sits on that throne. And anyone with eyes that see can now play God. That makes for a lot of Gods running around the kitchen all at once. Don't too many cooks spoil the broth?

Of course, I don't buy the explanation that God did it any more than I buy the explanation that the observer did it. I don't buy the Big Bang theory either. What I do buy is that humans are a bunch of blithering idiots, and I don't exclude Lanza, you, or myself from that observation. :lol:

No offense intended, by the way.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:32 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
At the very least, biocentrism does have some entertainment value.

Don't you think it also entertaining that you're using Wikipedia's conclusion of Lanza's work instead of lanza's actual work?

Lanza has said that he intends to publish aspects of biocentrism in peer-reviewed scientific journals. -- source
That should go a long way in helping to justify the claim that "Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world."

Again you attack the messenger not the message, who are you and what have you done to Chico?

Video #3 I have yet to watch, due to its length. I have instead been perusing the material found here to get a quicker exposure to Lanza's ideas. His "proof" that life exists after death -- because death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world -- is absurd.

Can you please explain why you think this is so "absurd"?

To assist you, a good example of "absurdity" would be the notion that 14 billion years ago the universe just popped out of nothing one day with all the laws of nature intack!

His other evidence that pulls from unresolved results and enigmas in science is likewise pretty silly, resting on explanations that are clearly based on ignorance, of which humanity is well supplied. Take for instance his use of the two particles that are claimed to communicate instantaneously on opposite sides of the galaxy. Since when do we have observers on opposite sides of the galaxy?

What you're lamely try to ridicule here Chico is actually called "Quantum entanglement" which repeated experiments have verified works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement, most recently using seven miles of fiber optic cable.

So as to whether the observers are seven miles apart or seven billion miles apart matters not! :D

How do we know what the particles are doing, unless we observe them, the act of which affects the particles, perhaps in identical ways, making it appear as if they communicated?

Now your just not making any sense Chico!

Could it be that our explanation that they communicated is based on our woefully inadequate understanding of the nature of the universe?

Its seems to me that the box you share with pseudo scientist Richard Dawkins is inhibiting your ability for rational thought... this behavior of matter is consistent with quantum theory and has been demonstrated experimentally with photons, electrons, molecules the size of buckyballs, and even small diamonds, as repetitively demonstrated by the pioneering work of Austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger and many others.

Einstein famously derided Quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance", hasn't his theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light been dis-proven now?

Lanza's hands-on experience with cloning was impressive, to be sure, but his foray into his new "theory of everything" smacks of the same idiocy that religion is renowned for, i.e. the convenient explanation that has little basis in reality. Whereas once God was the explanation for reality, now the observer sits on that throne. And anyone with eyes that see can now play God. That makes for a lot of Gods running around the kitchen all at once. Don't too many cooks spoil the broth?

Again you really need to extract yourself from that box you inhabit with Dawkins!

No offense intended, by the way. Image

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:30 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11781
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
andywight wrote:
What you're lamely try to ridicule here Chico is actually called "Quantum entanglement" which repeated experiments have verified works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement, most recently using seven miles of fiber optic cable.

That's a good trick, performing measurements "more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement". What is the probability of error there? How much do our observations (measurements) interfere with the outcome? I suspect that, most likely, the explanation for what we are observing is in error.

If you rely on observation using the human eye (which we do), you will have a tool that works reliably 99.9% of the time. Then an optical illusion will pop up, and you will be hard pressed to visually explain accurately what you are seeing. At this point, you can fall back on the brain, which can help you figure out that what you see is not always true.

If you rely on reasoning using the brain (which we do), you will have a tool that works reliably 99.9% of the time. Then a neurological illusion will pop up, and you will be hard pressed to mentally explain accurately what you are thinking. At this point, you can fall back on... ... well, I'm not sure what you can fall back on, so you will have little to help you figure out that what you are thinking is not always true.

Now, I admit that it could very well be that I'm not making any sense, and that something, perhaps even Richard Dawkins, might be inhibiting my ability for rational thought. Would you agree that we should all admit to this in general terms, and that Lanza could be wrong, as could Einstein, as could the scientists trying to explain quantum entanglement and the particle/wave "illusion" of light? And could it be that even andywight might be wrong?

No offense taken, as usual. :lol:

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:43 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11781
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
andywight wrote:
Don't you think it also entertaining that you're using Wikipedia's conclusion of Lanza's work instead of lanza's actual work?
andywight wrote:
... this behavior of matter is consistent with quantum theory and has been demonstrated experimentally with photons, electrons, molecules the size of buckyballs, and even small diamonds...
Wikipedia wrote:
This behavior is consistent with quantum theory, and has been demonstrated experimentally with photons, electrons, molecules the size of buckyballs, and even small diamonds.

I see you are also not opposed to using Wikipedia. :lol:

From the same Wikipedia article:

Quote:
However, there is some heated debate about whether a possible classical underlying mechanism could explain entanglement. The difference in opinion derives from espousal of various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

It appears that quantum mechanics, like God's will, has to be interpreted by the anointed ones for us common folk to comprehend.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
It appears that quantum mechanics, like God's will, has to be interpreted by the anointed ones for us common folk to comprehend.

I was hoping for some intelligent dialog on this topic, alas this wasn't to be. :(

"Molecules the size of buckyballs, and even small diamonds" discussed at the 42:28 mark!



... and for those interested:

Einstein's "Spooky Action at a Distance" Paradox Older Than Thought

Einstein’s famous critique of quantum mechanics first emerged in 1930, five years earlier than thought, according to a new analysis of his work.

Einstein’s phrase “spooky action at a distance” has become synonymous with one of the most famous episodes in the history of physics—his battle with Bohr in the 1930s over the completeness of quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s weapons in this battle were thought experiments that he designed to highlight what he believed were the inadequacies of the new theory.

The most famous of these is the EPR paradox, announced in 1935 and named after its inventors Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen.

It involves a pair of particles linked by the strange quantum property of entanglement (a word coined much later). Entanglement occurs when two particles are so deeply linked that they share the same existence. In the language of quantum mechanics, they are described by the same mathematical relation known as a wavefunction.

Entanglement arises naturally when two particles are created at the same point and instant in space, for example.

Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.

Einstein and co pointed out that according to special relativity, this was impossible and therefore, quantum mechanics must be wrong, or at least incomplete. Einstein famously called it spooky action at a distance.

The EPR paradox stumped Bohr and was not resolved until 1964, long after Einstein’s death. CERN physicist John Bell resolved it by thinking of entanglement as an an entirely new kind of phenomenon, which he termed “nonlocal.”

Read more...

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:18 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11781
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
andywight wrote:
I was hoping for some intelligent dialog on this topic, alas this wasn't to be. :(

Let me give you just one example of many that I could pull from the article you quote:

Quote:
Nikoli says this problem has never been satisfactorily analyzed from a modern perspective. Until now.

He says the proper resolution is to think of the total energy of the system, which is the energy of the box and the energy of the photon. The total energy is constant and governed by a single mathematical entity, even after the photon is emitted.

So the box and the photon must be entangled. -- source

This could easily be wrong. Recall Rupert Sheldrake's criticism of science and the ten assumptions science makes that may be in error. One of them is that the energy in the universe is constant, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The same assumption is being made in this entanglement argument. So are you prepared to accept both Sheldrake's arguments and Nikoli's arguments, whereupon you would be holding two conflicting beliefs simultaneously, which is by definition cognitive dissonance?

Disclaimer: I make no claim of being a source of intelligent dialog.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:14 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
This could easily be wrong. Recall Rupert Sheldrake's criticism of science and the ten assumptions science makes that may be in error. One of them is that the energy in the universe is constant, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The same assumption is being made in this entanglement argument. So are you prepared to accept both Sheldrake's arguments and Nikoli's arguments, whereupon you would be holding two conflicting beliefs simultaneously, which is by definition cognitive dissonance?

No.

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:55 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11781
Reply with quote
Post Re: Nosso lar
andywight wrote:
No.

So which will you reject?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:05 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.