Biocentrism: How life creates the universe

20goto10

Interesting article here about Biocentrism (I'm sure some of you have seen this already on Digg). It's lengthy but stick it out its worth it

As you read through it some points will be very familiar philosophical ideas. Is life real or is it only a figmant of my imagination and does something really exist if there is nothing around to say it exists. It also touches on the Goldilocks Principle, that the universe is fine tuned for life, and comes up with an interesting aspect on it - a universe that does not allow for life could not possibly exist.

Not all entirely new ideas but it's good to see these ideas becoming science rather than philosophy.

Goduznt Xzst

Right well the author of that piece is clearly religious and wants to feel special, which science and physics don't do effectively enough for them. There is an underlying sense of derision towards these fields, like they are trying to minimize human importance.

Also, the authors understanding of the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics is laughable.

Also, OP, a Universe that does not allow for life could definitely exist. This universe happens to have 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension which is what is required for life to come into existence, but not a requisite. You increase or decrease the number of dimensions on either scale and life could not form.

i.e with more than 3 space dimensions, atoms would not be stable, with less than 3 space dimensions, gravitational forces would not exist. With more than 1 time dimension physics would not be predictable... etc

Edit: Also, in regards to the "Goldilocks Principle", I'll refer you to this post by Wicknight which explained why this line of thinking about this Universe is a fallacy http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60004723&postcount=102

Undergod

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, OP, a Universe that does not allow for life could definitely exist. This universe happens to have 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension which is what is required for life to come into existence, but not a requisite. You increase or decrease the number of dimensions on either scale and life could not form

What does that mean? Could different types of matter and thus different types of life arise?

It's so different to what we know, and so outside our knowledge, it's not really possible to discuss it I think.

Goduznt Xzst

Undergod wrote: »

it's not really possible to discuss it I think.

You'd be wrong. Mathematically it is very possible to discuss it.

Related, you might want to watch this video:

http://revver.com/video/99898/imagining-the-tenth-dimension/

20goto10

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Right well the author of that piece is clearly religious and wants to feel special, which science and physics don't do effectively enough for them. There is an underlying sense of derision towards these fields, like they are trying to minimize human importance.

Also, the authors understanding of the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics is laughable.

Also, OP, a Universe that does not allow for life could definitely exist. This universe happens to have 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension which is what is required for life to come into existence, but not a requisite. You increase or decrease the number of dimensions on either scale and life could not form.

i.e with more than 3 space dimensions, atoms would not be stable, with less than 3 space dimensions, gravitational forces would not exist. With more than 1 time dimension physics would not be predictable... etc

Edit: Also, in regards to the "Goldilocks Principle", I'll refer you to this post by Wicknight which explained why this line of thinking about this Universe is a fallacy http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60004723&postcount=102

I must admit I didn't read anything religious into it. The author even says in relation to the Goldilocks principal that saying "God did it" is not an explanation, even if it were true. He's clearly talking from a biological viewpoint, admitedly he is talking philosophically for a lot of his arguments but his point that these ideas need to be brought into mainstream science in order to fully understand reality has nothing to do with religion. Take for example the much saught after theory of everything. Combining quantum mechanics and relativity does not go far enough as to answer "why?". Lets say we do get the theory of everything, then the next question is why is it that particular theory and not something else? What is it that makes it that.

How can a universe without life exist? What does existence mean if nothing is alive to observe it? That is not an argument for the existence of God, its an argument that reality is non existent if there is nothing there to "realise" it. That is if there is nothing biological there to realise it, as oppossed to some invisible supernatural force.

Lets take it from a different angle. Dead people have no senses and therefore, to them, the universe no longer exists. Do dead people have any concept of reality? Now lets say every creature in the universe is dead. There is not one thing in the universe with a sense of reality. Does that universe still exist? How can something that has no measurable properties exist?

Lets take the classic philosophical idea: Does a tree falling in the woods make a noise when there is nothing around to hear it? This of course can be answered scientifically. It does not make a noise, it makes a wave. The wave does not become a noise until it hits an ear (and the brain attached to it).

If I get your point correctly, you are saying that there is an existence outside of reality. Now that sounds like an argument of God to me!

Dades

20goto10 wrote: »

How can a universe without life exist? What does existence mean if nothing is alive to observe it? That is not an argument for the existence of God, its an argument that reality is non existent if there is nothing there to "realise" it. That is if there is nothing biological there to realise it, as oppossed to some invisible supernatural force.

We know the universe existed before life evolved, so surely that blows that theory out of water. To suggest that for something to exist in it's own right requires us to acknowledge it is quite a conceited concept.

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, the authors understanding of the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics is laughable.

Dr. Robert Lanza is a well known biologist who is quite excellent in his field but I would agree with you that his understanding of physics, particularly what is meant by an observer, is lacking.

His basic thesis is that life, particularly conscious life, acts as the observe for the universe that pulls the universe from a state of quantum uncertainty into the tangible reality we experience. Life is not only a product of the universe but life itself allows the universe to be as it is.

That idea though misses what an "observer" is in quantum mechanics. Your table is not a probability wave function not because you are looking at it but because all the molecules in the table are interacting ("observing") all the other molecules, causing the wave function to collapse and the table to be right there rather than possibly on the other side of the universe.

It is only when you isolate individual atomic particles do the peculiar principles of uncertainly appear. Once they interact with anything the wave function collapses (I'm sure there are funky exceptions to this, but in as a general rule)

As far as I understand it there is little reason to suspect that a universe with out life would look any different to a universe with life.

This issue with what is an observer seems to be cropping up rather a lot as I've seen similar ideas before, that life or God observes the universe thus helping it form.

20goto10

Dades wrote: »

We know the universe existed before life evolved, so surely that blows that theory out of water. To suggest that for something to exist in it's own right requires us to acknowledge it is quite a conceited concept.

We know the universe existed before life because we have studied it. If we hadn't studied it what would it be? Is there any meaning or substance to anything without life? Even before life existed there was meaning, because everything that happened lead to life and therefore lead to reality. What lies outside reality? It's something that cannot be answered until we understand what reality itself is. There is nothing conceited about it at all. The theory of everything is not actually a theory of absolutely everything. It does not answer why there is a theory of anything in the first place.

Zombrex

20goto10 wrote: »

How can a universe without life exist? What does existence mean if nothing is alive to observe it?

That only holds if you define existence in terms of human observation, which is a bit egocentric.

You put tie an anvil to the roof with a rope and then put a candle burning the rope slowly. You then leave the room. Now if no human is observing the rope, candle and anvil does that mean they cease to exist? And if so does that mean that the chemical reaction taking place between the air and the candle causing the flame which in turn is burning the rope, ceases to exist?

If so nothing should happen. Except when you do this simple experiment something does happen. You come back into the room a few minutes later to find an anvil has punched a hole in your wooden floor.

Experience tells us from an early age that things still happen when we are not observing them. A child learns pretty quickly that things still exist when it closes it's eyes. There is no real difference between removing one human and removing all of them. If you repeated the anvil experiment but before the anvil feel you some how killed everyone on Earth the anvil would still fall.

20goto10 wrote: »

That is not an argument for the existence of God, its an argument that reality is non existent if there is nothing there to "realise" it. That is if there is nothing biological there to realise it, as oppossed to some invisible supernatural force.

There is no real reason to think that there is a difference between biological observation and non-biological observation.

The candle "realises" the rope and the anvil as much as the observer would.

20goto10 wrote: »

Lets take it from a different angle. Dead people have no senses and therefore, to them, the universe no longer exists. Do dead people have any concept of reality?

This is a human fallacy, again related to how we develop models of the world as children, to think of dead people as people in the state of being dead, rather than something that no longer exists. (interestingly it has been suggested that this is where the concept of an after life comes from, the human instinct to think of dead people as a concept that still exists)

The question do dead people have a concept of reality is nonsensical. Dead people don't exist. In reality there is no such thing as a dead person so the concept has no tangible properties. Asking do they have anything, let alone a concept of reality, is meaningless.

20goto10 wrote: »

Now lets say every creature in the universe is dead. There is not one thing in the universe with a sense of reality. Does that universe still exist? How can something that has no measurable properties exist?

The universe does have measurable properties even if there is no one there to measure them, in the same way the heat from the candle will burn away the rope even if no one is watching this happen.

20goto10 wrote: »

Lets take the classic philosophical idea: Does a tree falling in the woods make a noise when there is nothing around to hear it? This of course can be answered scientifically. It does not make a noise, it makes a wave. The wave does not become a noise until it hits an ear (and the brain attached to it).

That is simply semantics. If "noise" is defined as a sound wave that is heard by someone then it requires someone to hear it. But physically there is no difference between an unheard sound wave and a heard sound wave.

20goto10

I think you miss the fundamental point here. Sure the rope burns and the anvil drops even if nobody is around to observe it. But it has only come into a state of being dropped as soon as it has been observed. Until then its anybodys guess. Did the flame blow out? Who knows. Everything, absolutely everything is subjective and the common denominator to subjectiveness is reality. What is reality? Is reality 3 dimensions and time? So what is a dimension and what is time? If you want to take it to mathematical terms what is zero and what is one? This is what I believe the article is pointing out. There is a lack of answers to the serious fundamental questions.

CerebralCortex

So what?

Zombrex

20goto10 wrote: »

I think you miss the fundamental point here. Sure the rope burns and the anvil drops even if nobody is around to observe it. But it has only come into a state of being dropped as soon as it has been observed. Until then its anybodys guess. Did the flame blow out? Who knows.

But that is irrelevant. If the flame blew out the flame blew out. It does not require that this is known for it to happen.

There is a difference between knowledge and happenings. There is no evidence (or logical reason I'm aware of) that things do not happen unless a human knows they happened.

20goto10 wrote: »

Everything, absolutely everything is subjective and the common denominator to subjectiveness is reality. What is reality? Is reality 3 dimensions and time? So what is a dimension and what is time? If you want to take it to mathematical terms what is zero and what is one? This is what I believe the article is pointing out. There is a lack of answers to the serious fundamental questions.

It would be foolish to believe that our human terms and concepts must map to how things actually are. Saying what is "reality" therefore becomes more complicated because reality is a human word describing a concept we came up with. There is no obligation on the universe to provide an answer that fits into this framework.

I think this is where a lot of people run into trouble and think there are no answers to the questions simply because the answers are not fitting into a concept that we came up with.

Reality is really what ever the universe tells us reality is. If that doesn't match to what we think reality should be then that is our problem, it is not the universe's, nor is a reason to start saying things don't really exist.

A good example of this is the tree falling in the wood. Some people say it doesn't make a noise or sound because sound cannot exist without someone to hear it. They then start stating that things don't exist or are not real. That is a very human centric way of looking at it and it supposes that our concepts of what a "sound" are are some how tangible. So we say without certain criteria things don't actually exist. But to me that is a very bad way of looking at it because there is no obligation on the universe to adhere to our concepts of sound. Our concepts are flawed, not the other way around. If a tree falls in the woods it does make a sound because a sound is what the universe decides a sound is, not what we decide it is.

We should describe the universe rather than dictating to it how it should be based on our own concepts and then some how thinking it is odd that the universe doesn't adhere to these concepts.

eoin5

20goto10 wrote: »

I think you miss the fundamental point here. Sure the rope burns and the anvil drops even if nobody is around to observe it. But it has only come into a state of being dropped as soon as it has been observed. Until then its anybodys guess. Did the flame blow out? Who knows. Everything, absolutely everything is subjective and the common denominator to subjectiveness is reality. What is reality? Is reality 3 dimensions and time? So what is a dimension and what is time? If you want to take it to mathematical terms what is zero and what is one? This is what I believe the article is pointing out. There is a lack of answers to the serious fundamental questions.

If you want to be this philosophical about the universe then you would do well to read anything by Robert Anton Wilson. Basically there are no absolutes, no certainties. In fact the very idea of "is" could be false, a way to wrongly equate our own reality tunnels (heh :rolleyes:) with absolute reality.

20goto10

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be foolish to believe that our human terms and concepts must map to how things actually are. Saying what is "reality" therefore becomes more complicated because reality is a human word describing a concept we came up with. There is no obligation on the universe to provide an answer that fits into this framework.

Reality is not a human concept. It is the world experienced through senses. Anything physics has to say is simply a human interpretation. We interpret the world through our sense of reality and any mathematical equation or physics theory we come up with is based on that interpretation. Would you not then agree that our biology plays an important part in understanding our universe? We know nothing else but reality yet we disregard it and ignore the fact that absolutely nothing enters or leaves our minds without it.

Physics may come up with the answer to life, the universe and everything but it has no idea what the question is.

20goto10

eoin5 wrote: »

If you want to be this philosophical about the universe then you would do well to read anything by Robert Anton Wilson. Basically there are no absolutes, no certainties. In fact the very idea of "is" could be false, a way to wrongly equate our own reality tunnels (heh :rolleyes:) with absolute reality.

Thanks, I'll check him out.

Dades

20goto10 wrote: »

There is a lack of answers to the serious fundamental questions.

20goto10 wrote: »

Physics may come up with the answer to life, the universe and everything but it has no idea what the question is.

Riight!

The universe existed long before us and will exist long after us, regardless of how certain humans try to suggest that we are required for it to exist. It's up there with the religious notions that the universe was created for men, in term of it's deluded self-importance.

20goto10

Dades wrote: »

Riight!

The universe existed long before us and will exist long after us, regardless of how certain humans try to suggest that we are required for it to exist. It's up there with the religious notions that the universe was created for men, in term of it's deluded self-importance.

I haven't once said the universe is created for us. I'm saying we can only see it through our biological senses. Anything that we come up with is directly connected to biology, for the simple reason we know nothing else but reality. Yet we don't even know what reality is. This is why biology is important to understanding everything.

By the way, I am not religious. If I had to give myself a label it would be an anti-theist. I despise and oppose everything religious. I'm obviously not getting my point across if people thing I'm just spouting religious nonsense.

Let me try it one final why. Think of reality as a filter through which we see the universe. When something is not being observed it is actually in its true state, which cannot be what we think it is because that can only happen within the realms of reality. Can we at least agree that we view the universe through a biological filter? If you agree on that then you must then agree that we need to understand what that filter is in order to fully understand what the universe is.

Dades

Wasn't Schrödinger's cat something to do with this?

Naz_st

Dades wrote: »

The universe existed long before us and will exist long after us, regardless of how certain humans try to suggest that we are required for it to exist. It's up there with the religious notions that the universe was created for men, in term of it's deluded self-importance.

That reminded me about the mind-bending concept that I read somewhere that suggested that, due to the phenomenon of retro-causality, the big bang occurred because of something we humans do later on when we have attained sufficient scientific knowledge. It was certainly the ultimate explanation for the "fine-tuned" nature of the universe!

Naz_st

Dades wrote: »

Wasn't Schrödinger's cat something to do with this?

Schrodinger's cat is an often mis-interpreted thought experiment. Basically it deals with the concept of superposition of states at a quantum level. When a "particle" is in superposition it is only through "observation" (which can more readily be termed "interaction" with other particles/waves) that collapses the probability wave function to a point. It isn't synonymous with the "tree falling in the woods" macro-world philosophical question and it doesn't mean that if no human is observing something it ceases to be.

20goto10

Naz_st wrote: »

Schrodinger's cat is an often mis-interpreted thought experiment. Basically it deals with the concept of superposition of states at a quantum level. When a "particle" is in superposition it is only through "observation" (which can more readily be termed "interaction" with other particles/waves) that collapses the probability wave function to a point. It isn't synonymous with the "tree falling in the woods" macro-world philosophical question and it doesn't mean that if no human is observing something it ceases to be.

But until it is observed on a biological level it ceases to be something which we comprehend it to be. You could say underneath it all there is nothing but gloop. In string theory it would be a mish mash of strings but on a higher level we just have a cloud/soup of atoms. Physics can explain what differenciates my atoms from the keyboards atoms as I type, I don't fully understand it but I know its to do with the Higgs Boson particle which they hope to discover soon. That's all well and good. But it still doesn't answer the question people want to know. Lets say they do discover the Higgs Boson particle and the theory is proven. Wonderful, we all know what gives things mass. But it doesn't answer why all these forces come together in that particular way and why they don't do something different. Showing a mathematical equation to prove things is useless when we can't even say what the fundamental building blocks of maths are. What is One and what is Zero? I mean what precisely are they?

Saying stuff happens because "they just do" is no different to saying "god did it". Instead of saying they just do you could actually tackle the issue head on. They do that because we interpret them to do that. Because if we didn't there would be no reality and what do we have without reality? Gloop.

Think for a minute about nothingness, as best as we can comprehend. Death is the ultimate nothingness. Is there a difference between that sort of nothingness and the nothingness of there being no universe at all? As best as we can comprehend, the answer would be no. Nothingness is nothingness so they are both the same. So if every living thing is dead, are you saying there is something there other than nothingness?

Zillah

20goto10 wrote: »

Gloop.

I think "gloop" (intellectually) is the perfect way of describing what you just posted.

Naz_st

20goto10 wrote: »

But until it is observed on a biological level it ceases to be something which we comprehend it to be.

Until we observe it we can't comprehend it - I won't argue on that one!

Physics can explain what differenciates my atoms from the keyboards atoms as I type, I don't fully understand it but I know its to do with the Higgs Boson particle which they hope to discover soon.

What has the Higgs Boson particle got to do with your atoms vs the keyboard atoms? The Higgs Boson impinges on the fundamental differences between the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force.

You could say underneath it all there is nothing but gloop. In string theory it would be a mish mash of strings but on a higher level we just have a cloud/soup of atoms.

I don't understand what point you're making. String theory (or M-theory which is the unification of a number of different string theories) and particle physics are ways of trying to explain how the universe works. What's your point?

What is One and what is Zero? I mean what precisely are they?

Numbers. That's all. Or are you referring to the binary states?

Saying stuff happens because "they just do" is no different to saying "god did it".

No, it's very different. Saying God did it implies purpose and interference.

Instead of saying they just do you could actually tackle the issue head on. They do that because we interpret them to do that. Because if we didn't there would be no reality and what do we have without reality? Gloop.

Gloop indeed.

Think for a minute about nothingness, as best as we can comprehend. Death is the ultimate nothingness. Is there a difference between that sort of nothingness and the nothingness of there being no universe at all? As best as we can comprehend, the answer would be no. Nothingness is nothingness so they are both the same. So if every living thing is dead, are you saying there is something there other than othingness?

As somebody else pointed out, there were no living things for quite some time after the Big Bang, yet there wasn't nothingness.

Zombrex

20goto10 wrote: »

Reality is not a human concept. It is the world experienced through senses.

That is a human concept, it is an attempt of humans to describe and mentally model something (as you say the world we experience) and our ideas about it are formed early in life.

My point is that the universe is under no obligation to be how we think it should be based on how we develop our concept of what reality is.

20goto10 wrote: »

Would you not then agree that our biology plays an important part in understanding our universe?

I would but it seems to have no reflection on how the universe actually is.

The fallacy in your argument to me would be the idea that something external to us some how changes state when we are not observing it. I see no reason to suppose this is true.

Zombrex

20goto10 wrote: »

But until it is observed on a biological level it ceases to be something which we comprehend it to be.

It doesn't cease to be anything. The only thing that changes is our internal concept of the object, which is independent to the universe as a whole.

Think of it this way, you see a movie and think it is pretty bad. Later in life you see it again and think actually it wasn't as bad as you thought. The movie has not changed. It has not ceased to be bad and is now good. The only thing that has changed is your perception of it. And that is your issue, it is independent to the movie itself.

20goto10 wrote: »

But it still doesn't answer the question people want to know. Lets say they do discover the Higgs Boson particle and the theory is proven. Wonderful, we all know what gives things mass. But it doesn't answer why all these forces come together in that particular way and why they don't do something different.

The question "Why is it this way" on some level implies a conscious decision which may not exist.

If someone said "random chance" most people would find that answer very unsatisfactory, not because of its truth or lack of, but because people think in terms of agents deciding to do things for human like reasons.

20goto10 wrote: »

Showing a mathematical equation to prove things is useless when we can't even say what the fundamental building blocks of maths are. What is One and what is Zero? I mean what precisely are they?

They are mental concepts representing quantity.

20goto10 wrote: »

Saying stuff happens because "they just do" is no different to saying "god did it". Instead of saying they just do you could actually tackle the issue head on. They do that because we interpret them to do that. Because if we didn't there would be no reality and what do we have without reality? Gloop.

that isn't an answer to the question you are supposing, so all that is some one pointless. It is like asking why did Dave drive to Dublin and answering because if he didn't he wouldn't be in Dublin. that doesn't answer the question.

20goto10 wrote: »

Think for a minute about nothingness, as best as we can comprehend. Death is the ultimate nothingness. Is there a difference between that sort of nothingness and the nothingness of there being no universe at all? As best as we can comprehend, the answer would be no. Nothingness is nothingness so they are both the same. So if every living thing is dead, are you saying there is something there other than nothingness?

Yes, there is everything that is around us.

Death is not nothingness. Death is simply a different state of the chemical reaction of life. The chemicals in your body change into other arrangements because the chemical reaction that was your life ceases to take place. So you comparing death to nothingness in the sense of no universe is not comparing like. Death in a physical sense is not nothingness it is a change in state.

We do not have a frame of reference for actual nothingness, it is not a concept that we can understand.

20goto10

OK thanks for the discussion guys. I think there is something in it but now I'm not exactly sure what....:D