So you are not prepared to accept both Sheldrake's arguments and Nikoli's arguments, and you will reject neither. In other words, (X AND Y) = False, and NOT (X AND Y) = False, a logical impossibility.

Does that mean you are beginning to realize the uncertainty inherent in the discussion of reality? Or are you stepping outside the bounds of reason?

Wait, let me anticipate your response. "No" and "No". Which, of course, makes answering the question of no practical use, and advances our understanding of the validity of biocentrism not one whit.

So, I'm listening to Lanza video #3. It just keeps getting worse.

The "fine tuned parameters" argument Lanza uses is another absurd sleight-of-hand. Anticipating what the universe would be like if any universal parameter is changed is not something we can know. To claim life wouldn't exist if the parameters were not as they are is assuming too much. Life can only know the path it has traveled, and it cannot know any of the other paths it did not travel. Sure, one can imagine, based on the properties of the path we did travel, but that's no basis for a proof supporting biocentrism.

Whenever we put ourselves at the center of anything (ethnocentric, geocentric, egocentric, biocentric, etc.), we invariably turn out to be off-track. The world, and in this case the universe, just doesn't revolve around us, no matter how much we want it to.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a consequence of the interaction of the method of measurement on the object being measured. It has nothing to do with the observer "looking at" the object, in the strict literal sense. You can look at the object all you want, but you will see nothing unless the object is emitting energy. In order to see it when it is not emitting energy, you must "probe" the object with energy you provide. By doing so, you affect the object, so when you measure again to verify your first measurement, you find that the object has changed. Lanza mistakenly concludes that the characteristics of the object don't exist unless you "look at it", or probe it. This is a ridiculous notion, to say the least.

If necessary, I can address Lanza's other arguments, but the pattern is the same. Lanza's belief system just doesn't pass muster.

From the limited Dawkinist standpoint you seem the be addressing this topic with I can understand your confusion, and I say this in relation to this whole topic, not just the information I have just presented from Dr Robert Lanzer.

You again seem to have come to your own conclusions about my response before completely studying the issue, which unfortunately highlights the pattern emerging from your logic, which unfortunately re-affirms my suspicions to your entrapment within the dark corridors Dawkinist thinking!

To address this issue I believe we should first examine why you seem to believe that Sheldrake and Nikoli's arguments are polar opposites, can you explain why you believe this?

Not polar opposites, but contradictory. That explanation is here.

I'm sorry but the link to your alleged explanation to Sheldrake's and Nikoli's arguments being "contradictory" as opposed to "polar opposites" is just not going to cut it in this instance, can you please explain this again so we can avoid any latter contextual misunderstandings!

Nikoli's argument is based on the assumption that the total energy is constant. Sheldrake's argument is that the basic assumptions of science should be questioned, including the rule that energy cannot be created or destroyed, thus making the total energy in the universe a constant. If you accept Sheldrake's argument that science may be wrong concerning its assumptions about the conservation of energy, then you should question Nikoli's assumption that the total energy is constant.

Note also that the Big Bang theory appears to struggle with the notion of conservation of energy, claiming a miraculous birth of everything from a single point. As absurd as that appears to be, even more absurd is Lanza's claim that nothing exists until it is observed. I suppose we could combine the two, and say that something must have observed that point in the middle of all that boring nothingness and voila, a universe was born.

Hey, why not? I hear they stare at goats.

The simplest and most obvious example of entanglement is the 2 slit experiment. For the interference pattern to exist each photon must be in 2 places at once, both slits, so "Quantum entanglement" must exist, so I don't feel it's necessary to reject Nikoli's arguments.

Sheldrake explained why he believes science should be questioned by simply comparing the data, so I again don't feel it's necessary to reject his arguments and am at a loss to see any "cognitive dissonance" in this!

If you feel Quantum entanglement is "Junk Science" can you then explain why light can act so differently just from be observed?

The interference pattern exists because light behaves like a wave, just like all EMF energy. But light can also appear to act like a particle, perhaps like all EMF energy. However, appearances can be deceiving. At this level of quanta, the distinction between particle and wave blurs. We are trying to describe a complex unknown in terms of things we know (like particles and waves), and as a result, we look rather foolish, just like the blind men describing the elephant.


Here's a simple example. Light is a particle. No, light is a wave. In the ordinary brain, which has to simplify to understand things beyond a certain level of complexity, we have already arrived at cognitive dissonance just trying to understand light.


I'm not calling the science "junk science", rather I am calling the explanations "junk explanations". There is something very strange going on at this level of zoom that is beyond our experience.

I seriously doubt light is truly acting differently because we "observe" it. We think of observing as focusing our vision on an object. Light reflected from an object is focused on our retinas and converted to electrochemical signals that are interpreted by the brain. The double slit experiment is a quite clever way to observe the workings of light by getting it to interfere with itself. But other ways of "observing" the inner workings of light are problematic and highly susceptible to misinterpretation. The measurement problem and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle also come into play, to make matters even worse. So as much as I admire science, there can come a point where it can begin to resemble religion due to the passion of flawed humans and their oversimplified explanations.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -- Richard Feynman

I can't claim to understand quantum mechanics. When I was in college 40 years ago, I was majoring in physics. I took Physics 101 and 102 with Albert A. Bartlett, widely rumored to be one of the hardest freshman courses on campus. It was indeed intense. I managed to get an A in both courses, and was publicly recognized by Professor Bartlett himself for having received a rare perfect score on one of the feared comprehensive tests that required you to solve new problems using the understanding of principles that you were supposed to be learning. But the truth is, the complexity of physics, which is really the complexity of Nature, exceeds my current mental capability. I think Richard Feynman, with that quote above, is saying that we all fall into that boat.

I haven't even read this book, which I imagine would be the minimum prerequisite to speak "intelligently" on the subject, assuming you really understood what you were reading and what the advanced mathematics was telling you. We do all completely understand the fundamentals and details of calculus, right?

So here we are discussing the meaning of experiments that challenge the most talented of humans, because Lanza wants to point to quantum mechanics as evidence for his new far-out theory of biocentrism, where nothing exists until it is observed.

You do realize that human hypocrisy is one of my favorite subjects to study, right?