Theory of every-living-thing

Posted: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:52 PM by Alan Boyle

ACT via IRG

Stem cell pioneer Robert
Lanza says biology has to
be part of any "theory of
everything."

The quest to unify all of physics into one big framework called "the theory of everything" has inspired a host of way-out ideas, with the current leading concept involving a 10- or 11-dimensional universe. Now a pioneer in the field of stem cell research has weighed in with an essay that brings biology and consciousness into the mix.

Robert Lanza, vice president for research and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology, sets forth his view on the quest for a unified cosmic theory in "A New Theory of the Universe," an essay appearing in The American Scholar.

In the past, the intellectual journal has published the provocative musings of such luminaries as Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell - and Lanza hopes his perspective on one of the biggest questions of the cosmos will make a similar splash.

Lanza argues that the debates over extra dimensions, unknowable multiverses and cosmic landscapes are heading down the wrong road:

"The urgent and primary questions of the universe have been undertaken by those physicists who are trying to explain the origins of everything with grand unified theories. But as exciting as these theories are, they are an evasion, if not a reversal, of the central mystery of knowledge: that the laws of the world were somehow created to produce the observer. And more important than this, that the observer in a significant sense creates reality and not the other way around. Recognition of this insight leads to a single theory that unifies our understanding of the world."

He points to recent research into retrocausality - the spooky idea that an observer can apparently decide the outcome of an event after it has occurred - as fresh evidence that observers create their own versions of reality. The idea goes back at least as far as Immanuel Kant's 18th-century philosophizing about space, time and other categories, and it also comes up as a new-age twist on quantum mechanics in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

So is Lanza's new theory actually a new-age spiritual tract rather than a scientific proposition? "Absolutely not," he told me Wednesday.

"Very real experiments show that space and time are indeed relative to the observer," he said, "and there are real experiments that also continue to show that the properties of matter itself are observer-determined. ... Science has to deal with these facts."

As physicists learn more about the constants that govern how the universe works - including the cosmological constant that appears to govern how fast the universe is expanding - they're starting to come around to the view that we've benefited from an astronomical stroke of luck that arranged things just right for life and consciousness to develop. Lanza, however, sees it a different way: that we observe these features in the universe because we are biologically built to see things in this particular way.

"Reality isn't a thing," he told me. "It's a process."

Many physicists may well protest that the "create-your-own-reality" mantra does nothing to reconcile the micro world of quantum mechanics with the macro world of general relativity - the stated aim of the quest for the theory of everything. But as far as Lanza is concerned, the contradictions and weirdnesses that arise from the quantum world serve as signals that a new approach is needed, with more weight given to the role of observers.

"Physicists have had 100 years of trying to resolve the conflicts in their foundations, and they've had no luck," Lanza said. "It's not because they're not bright. It's obviously because there's a part of the puzzle that's missing. And I think this is the answer: The answer is biology. Hopefully, if that message gets out, I think we'll be able to basically resolve the conflicts very quickly."

He said his ideas on "bio-logic" have put his own sometimes-controversial work with human embryonic stem cells in a new perspective.

"The very first thing that embryonic stem cells do, without any effort at all, is that they make neurons," Lanza observed. "They are assembling basically into the fundamental structures that are the building blocks of reality. ... If you look at embryonic stem cells, they can do anything - every cell of the body - but what they do, and every scientist who has studied this will tell you, is they make neurons. All the other cell types are a lot more problematic, they require more signaling. But this is what they do on their own without any external signals. I find that interesting, and I don't think necessarily it's an accident."

What next? Lanza said he's hoping to expand the essay into a book that goes into more of the "scientific nitty-gritty" behind his concept. In the meantime, I'd love to hear your reactions to Lanza's new theory. Please give the essay a read, then leave your comments below.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I have to agree. Consciousness is the road to reality. The old adage nothing exists unless there is a conscious person to bring it to reality. I think it would be fruitful if there were a research into finding ways for the human to see or sense the other dimensions without big mechanical aides or the reasons why they cannot. I still believe this shouldnt preclude the continous research with the Hadron Collider. The collider can be backup proof of the existance of String theory and multidimensions. We are also a product of the quantum wierdness and its possible that many of our dreams are the result of this wierdness.

Ralph Garner, Merritt Island, Florida (Sent Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:41 PM)

Oh my gosh, I really did try to read that entire rant, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. He does write well, but I think his ideas are self indulgent and childlike. Look, I'm no genius, I have a ninth grade education, and I read about physics with my first year algebra math level (I believe I may have gotten as high as a 'D' in that class...) and will clearly never know that much. I am sure Lanza's biology work is top notch, I just think it is easy to get swept up in romantic notions after reading about particle physics and quantum mechanics. I do a bit, I'm just aware that it's idle fantasy. It all sounds nice, but I don't think it will stand up to critical thought. I'll make one real point: Saying that none of life would be possible if any of hundreds of critical laws of nature were ever-so slightly different just shows a lack of imagination to see how life might be in a different frame of reference.

--Cheyenne, 34, Tech Support.

Cheyenne Young, Santa Cruz, CA (Sent Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:02 PM)

Nothing at all new here. While there are weird quantum effects which are observer dependent, they are also statistical and become nothing more than an extremely slight "noise" in the macro world. (This excludes some macroscopic effects observable at temperatures near absolute zero.)

We are neither the created or the creators of our universe. We are participants in our universe. The difference is the difference between a noun and a verb; between an object and an action.

The actual process has the appropriate name of "being", from the verb "be". We are not "beings" (noun) we are in the process of "being".

We are verbs, participating through the agency of time in the process of existence. By thinking of ourselves as objects or things, we freeze ourselves outside of time and process to the point of nonsense. To update Heraclitus; not only can you never step in the same river twice, you are not the same person when you step out of a river as when you stepped in.

By thinking of ourselves as "creating" reality by our thoughts/consciousness we engage in magical thinking. While quantum weirdness does tell us much about the nature of physical existence, it tells us nothing about ourselves.

Despite the pronouncements of some New Age thinkers, the weirdness inherent in the quantum world is of minor relation to our consciousness. Our consciousness is only a part of the function of our organisms. It is not a fairy with an existence outside of the organism.

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA (Sent Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:52 PM)

Alan! How could you? Go away and leave this piece of homework for us? You expect a COMMENT! I could go on and on far longer than Mr. Lanza and still only get started with the comments. But two points stand out for me, both just touched on momentarily by the author.

First, he must have read Pere de Chardin's book, Phenomenon of Man, which explains mankind's existence as "a rising bubble in a downward stream" very well, but taking a whole book to relate that to the "noosphere" which is the entire joint consciousness of all the people.

Second, he refers to "letting the light in" which comes from a poem (song) by the Montreal poet in which the words end with "the cracks in the world are put there to let the light in" by which we are enlightened.

I could go on. And on. But I won't.

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada (Sent Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:42 PM)

Certainly an interesting article! When we think back to the very beginning of time itself and how the universe might have began, the idea of ‘consciousness’ seems like a possible initial spark to set it all off… a spark of self-realization that would have made nothingness unstable.

As we talked a while back, I also think it’s “unscientific” for scientists to gloss over what so many shaman, martial artists, yogis, spiritual leaders, and Native Americans have told us all along. That they “CAN FEEL” the oneness of the universe that we are all apart of. Separation of objects really is like an illusion and our interconnectedness hints that our TRUE INTENTIONS do play a role in what happens. It’s kind of like the idea of Karma. Native Americans feel that based on your intentions and your gut feeling you can be led to things you need to do or avoid life-threatening situations. It’s like we are imprinting our intentions on some unseen dimension which is different from our physical body but affected by it nonetheless: something that may indeed prove certain aspects of spirituality.

Alan, this also reminds me of the book Tao of Physics which talks about how the interaction of the observer with the universe hints that we are indeed one with it. This way of thinking is actually what led to all of my past postings where I was – basically – trying to say atoms and subatomic forces are the fingerprint of other dimensions stretching the SAME initial fabric of space that we are all apart of. We only seem like separate 3D entities, but at some fundamental level we must be part of the same fabric to be able to feel the things we do. We feel forces in our ordinary day that cannot be explained by just a 3D reality, and we may very well be made up of the extra dimensions we seek elsewhere in the universe. We retain the 3Dish "physicality" that we do because we are made up of 4D and 5D objects and we feel the forces of other dimensions even though we can’t see them. I think part of the problem is that we are trying to think of extra dimensions as having some type of 'size' (a very 3D construct) when in reality, such dimensions may be as different to us as 'time' is to a 3D office desk. We feel and see their forces (gravity electricity…) but we can’t see them.

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:31 PM)

Mr. Lanza doesn't seem to know what he believes. Despite his argument for biocentrism, he cannot bring himself out of the box. He seems unwilling to go forward with it and admit a spiritual connection.

"Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee."

j (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 4:04 AM)

To quote Lanza:

"We are like Loren Eiseley's moth, blundering from light to light, unable to discern the great play that blazes under the opera tent."

"Consciousness cannot exist without a living, biological creature to embody its perceptive powers of creation."

Without being the moth how can Lanza know what the moth knows?

Can Lanza prove that consciousness cannot exist beyond the physical?

Until Lanza can prove either of those statements I have to assume that Lanza's theory rests on un-provable assumptions.

I believe Lanza makes a mistake in referencing Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. All Zeno did was show the limitations of mathematics as a descriptive tool. I think caution should be used when attempting to draw wider conclusions about consciousness from it.

John Nelson (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 9:13 AM)

As a physics & cosmology buff, I'm bothered by Mr. Lanza's statement:
"But as exciting as these theories are, they are an evasion, if not a reversal, of the central mystery of knowledge: that the laws of the world were somehow created to produce the observer."

The role of physics, as I see it, is to seek an explanation of the mechanics of the physical world - how all the parts work, from galactic superclusters down to quantum phenomena. To understand the physical structure of the cosmos does not, and should not, require assumptions about some spiritual intention to produce an observer.

An auto mechanic does not need to understand the driver's intent to take his Aunt Betty to the grocery store in order to understand how a car works.

Mr. Lanza's notions muddies the waters of an already complex subject and feeds a popular idea among the uninformed: that scientists just sit around scratching themselves & speculating about the universe & stuff like a bunch of teenage stoners and making it all up.

I challenge Mr. Lanza to quantify his ideas. When he can cast "intent to produce an observer" in the form of an equation, then I'll be willing to listen to what he has to say.

James Negri, Lakeland FL (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 9:23 AM)

I've been reading books based on theoretical physics for a long time now. The best part of this article (in my humble opinion) is that it speaks to the heart.

Tony LaMere, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 9:29 AM)

This is utter bunk. More evidence of the power of magical thinking. If a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound. Consciousness not required.

When people can walk through wall or fall UP as a result of their "decisions for the outcome of an event", I'll be convinced.

Jeff Runnels (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 9:40 AM)

I have been privileged to sojourn in the company of visionaries, scientists, philosophers, and other thoughtful men and women in academia during the past 50 years. When teaching a seminar in Philosophy of Science to science teachers in 1972, I began to challenge the established views of science by governments and the public.

    For example, the "Scientific Method" is not a Holy or Divine Revelator of "Truths". It has many limitations to its uses, and vigilance must keep bias from creeping into its process. The disciplines of Philosophy, Economics, and other fields must tread swampy ground as inquiry is pursued.

    Are all the disciplines enmeshed in inquiry? What goes on in a think-tank, military intelligence, amateur botany club, or economics roundtable? I have assumed the role of the "observer" and I see the world building electron microscopes to peer deeper "within". I see bigger and grander telescopes to peer "without". I see expeditions to the bottom of the sea, to the south pole, the moon, and such.

    I challenged my students and professional colleagues to understand that all their seeking, searching, pushing is the result of their mind-set of "What is the answer"? All their new studies, their new machines, and their struggles will lead to new searches for THE ANSWER. As witness to their efforts, I chide many of them to consider their situation. They chase here and there, they regroup and attack, they try a new approach, or they must have more funding.

    My challenge has been the same since 1972 -"Why are you constantly looking here and there in all manner of ways for THE ANSWER? You waste a lot of time and energy and resources blindly searching for THE ANSWER. The proper effort should be directed to a better starting point. We should change our focus and inquire: WHAT IS THE QUESTION?"

Dr. John French , Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, U.S.A. (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 10:47 AM)

Okay Mr. Lanza, I give up. Everything is just a construct of a mind. Out of respect, we should call this the relative theory of relativity, which is of course just another construct of a mind. It is now certain that organic logic is the only source of the virtual universe. Perhaps this will all change when we awaken tomorrow. Sweet Dreams.

Bob Brister, Panama City FL (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 10:54 AM)

I think it's all garbage. And maybe that includes quantum mechanics and general relativity, too. Considering the size of our universe and the amount of it we actually have reliable experience with, we might as well be standing on a beach looking at a grain of sand saying "I now know all I need to know about Life, The Universe, and Everything". I believe it's pointless to pin it all down with one unifying theory at this point in the game. It's the same way with how people chain themselves to their religions. It shouldn't be about the right answer and believing that you have THE answer ... Life, consciousness, science, religion ... it's all about the journey, the quest, the actual act of seeking it out. And it's about knowing that until mankind has touched the edge of everything, including his own consciousness, we still know as much as is held in a grain of sand. There are no right answers, only wrong questions. 42. Only the dead man knows his poisons.

Richard Horn, McKinney TX (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 11:17 AM)

This doesn't belong under the category of Science.

John Galt (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 12:01 PM)

The Russian experiments in altering DNA via Hypercommunication are interesting.

Think happy thoughts so you don't get cancer.

JC, Riverton, CT (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 12:05 PM)

Chris,

I build a graviscope. It's pretty neat. It allows me to look, not so much into the future and into the past, as down on the time dimension from a different vantage point.

BTW - we won the war.

JC, Riverton, CT (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 12:10 PM)

R. Lanza makes you think. There is lots I'd like to say about the essay but can't. He should perhaps have mentioned Plato's Allegory of the cave when he says: "Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has existence unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how it is perceived further influences that reality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

I personally do believe that things do occur outside our immediate existence. That rabbit that I saw cross in front of my window was beside the house even though I didn't observe it there. The tracks in the snow prove it.

Now about conciousness. That is intriguing. I imagine the lowly amoeba that has no neural network but still interacts and responds to it's world. Senses food and surrounds it to eat, reacts to light, heat etc.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 12:30 PM)

He's just trying to blurr the lines between Physics and Philosophy. This Zen crap never got any farther than stringing beads together to build a "computer". He also needs a way to justify killing babies to continue his work.

Guy Newell (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 1:09 PM)

Existentialist philosophers (e.g. Sartre, Bergson, Marcel)pointed out that everything and anything we "scientifically" think or say about reality is SECONDARY to and derivative from our actual EXPERIENCE of reality. We, as the observers, can't take ourselves out of the equation. There is no way we be "objective" about ourselves. So there is no way to be "objective" about reality. So reality and life always remains mysterious. And it is better so.

Paul Chitwood, PhD Sacramento, CA (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 1:15 PM)

Awwh the Grand mystery of the universe, of life itself, of consciousness. If we come to understand it all, half the fun will be gone. I do believe this mystery is better than sex, which is transitory, and a part of the process. We can create in our minds things that are reality to us, but not reality to others. The complexity is the marvelous part of it all and we get to watch the show however brief our passage (or perhaps it is an endless passage not always conscious except as a part of the greater consciousness of the process. Perhaps our energy recycling through life and death and the cosmos intermixing with other energy is what informs mankind and allows him a peek, a window into the mystery. Keep digging guys and gals it makes wonderful reading and thought patterns;and disjointed as it maybe, it may all come together like a jigsaw puzzle(but not three D). Soon I pass into that great mix of energy and wouldn't we all like to think we could come back, young, renewed and better informed. Awwh I was here but for such a brief time, but what a ride. Next ride is to rejoin the greater energy blend. Why is it so important to me that the world learn how to live in peace? That is one of the mysteries, guess it is my mind/body/energy trying to create it. See you in transit.

L. E. Finney, Laguna Niguel, CA (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 1:21 PM)

Right up there with the great critical thinkers behind "What the Bleep Do We Know?". Lanza appears to be a misguided scientist whose "theory" is actually a hopeful justification of his own existence.

Matthew Sklar -- Los Angeles, CA (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 1:39 PM)

Dudes, like, everything is connected...

Starchild, Oconomowoc, WI (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 2:38 PM)

Yes, Lanza's theory *is* actually a New Age spiritual tract.

Dave Burwasser, Oberlin, Ohio (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 3:26 PM)

Good article. But, I suggest you leave any idea of biology vs. physics behind. It sounds to me as if you are writing philosophically not from the point of biology as a science so much as from the point of veiw of a living being. Biology and physics are both sciences. They fall under the same umbrella and experience the same limits. These studies are finite endeavors.

We all have a capacity to transcend the finite methods of understanding. We are inclined to dismiss it. It is a method that has been used to comprehend Truth since the beginning of recorded history. It is imagination, or myth. The truth that lies hidden is timeless. But it is there for the finding for those unafraid to look.

You are on the verge of grasping the Law some would call "As above, so below."

Both are capable of reaching Truth... one way will take an infinite amount of investigation... the other always has been with us.

Brian C (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 3:30 PM)

Cheyenne,

For someone with only a ninth education you sure have a clear grasp on 'reality'.

Patrick, Chicago (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 4:36 PM)

I heard a biologist/scientist say on TV one time that the phenomenon of galaxies and stars forming, growing, dying and "re creating" themselves is guided by the same process that exists all through out nature.

Organic plants also seem to have similar forces that help assure their "re creation" as well. What if someday we found what this common force is and how it exists. Then we would truly see the hand of God. Talk about the theory of everything!!

Robert Horn

Robert Horn (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 5:58 PM)

I believe that the author is confused about the differences between the uncertainty principle and the observer effect (a common, but potentially embarassing mistake!).

My understanding is that the precision with which an object can be measured is determined by three factors: the observer effect, the precision of the measurement tool, and the uncertainty of the object. These factors are distinct, and quite unrelated.

To follow the example of the electron, it was classically believed that the precision of measurements on the electron was determined only by the first two of those factors. Prior to Heisenberg's revelation, scientists believed that a measurement taken with a perfect instrument by a completely non-interacting observer would be perfectly precise. Heisenburg demonstrated that this was not the case: rather, an inherent property of the object could prevent absolute precision, at least when two parameters were to be measured simultaneously. This property is the uncertainty of the object.

The reason that the momentum and location of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with absolute precision has nothing to do with observational interference (the observer effect), or entanglement (the observation doesn't exist until a measurement is taken). During validation of the uncertainty principle, the observer does not "pin down" the electron to make the measurement, arresting it in time (as Zeno's arrow). Rather, the inherent property of the electron absolutely prevents that both measurements can be made.

The author also fails to explain how an object can be described as an observer, beyond assuming that an observer must have conciousness to be an obeserver. He trips up particularly by discussing shared or universal conciousness. Extending the argument leads to ridiculous conclusions.

Shroedinger challenged ideas such as these over 80 years ago. I don't believe that this author is putting forth any misunderstandings of quantum mechanics that haven't been present for almost a century.

Dan Atwater, Missoula MT (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 6:02 PM)

Robert Lanza, I like the way that you think!

This quote, from Lanza's essay, in my opinion sums it all up, "Physicists believe that the theory of everything is hovering right around the corner, and yet consciousness is still largely a mystery, and physicists have no idea how to explain its existence from physical laws. The questions physicists long to ask about nature are bound up with the problem of consciousness. Physics can furnish no answers for them. “Let man,” declared Emerson, “then learn the revelation of all nature and all thought to his heart; this, namely; that the Highest dwells with him; that the sources of nature are in his own mind” (end quote).

Lanza's approach is kissing physics good-by and saying hello to metaphysics. (Welcome home Robert!)

"Metaphysics" is a system of cause-and-effect that transcends mundane physics and employs the 'self' as a co-creator of experience. Metaphysics determines that all of 'reality' is a vast ocean in which each individualized ego/self is but a drop and in which there is no actual PURE objective reality other than each of us being a part of what Man vaguely calls "God". "Physics" can tell us HOW phenomena occurs but it is metaphysics that teaches us how to make stuff happen (of course there is some overlap).

The key, however (opinion) is NOT to be found in biology as our 'biology' is an issue that must be transcended in order to glimpse the truth of Lanza's assertions. It is the dissolution of the biological ego/self that merges 'the drop' into the oneness of the ocean where space-time is revealed as a multi-dimensional temporal illusion. In fact, all true religions and systems of metaphysics are designed to liberate 'the drop' from its myriad machinations that can last eternally beyond the veil of time.

I hope that Lanza shakes things up, however, most scientists are addicted to 'consensus reality' and will relegate Lanza to "FlatLand"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

In FlatLand there are only two dimensions (length and width) and the occupants of FlatLand are either lines or dots. One day 'a line' discovered a new dimension called height and stood up! However, when preaching about this new dimension the standing 'line' was experienced simply as a lunatic dot.

Summary: There is a veil between the physical 'reality' and the causal reality. In the physical reality there are a hundred million 'things', each of which has a unique name (Man, the naming animal). In the causal reality there is only one (non-physical)'thing' and that one thing is unnamable. The commonality between these two realms is 'consciousness'. Consciousness has an eternal shelf-life and acts as both the Creator and the created. It is both cause and effect and is always interacting with itself. It (consciousness) occupies all of its creations and becomes temporarily 'flavored' (subjective) by the form that it occupies.

I love Lanza's approach. It includes 1) physics - physical reality, 2) religion or spiritual/non-physical reality (without the machinations) and 3) metaphysics - how it works. The hmmm... 'blessed trinity' of any Theory of Everything unified by consciousness.

For the mundane physicist the 'missing ingredient' will (has, at least) always be the
spirit/consciousness that is behind all phenomena.

As always, according to the sages, if you are seeking a Theory of Everything then "You are looking FOR what it is that you are looking WITH" .... the creative consciousness that is the ultimate and eternal source... that indwelling spirit (consciousness) that we all refer to as 'myself'; that drop that has separated itself from the ocean of ultimate truth.

John Charles Webb, Jr. Formerly of FlatLand (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 6:28 PM)

RE: AL IT Y

I beg you read Einstein's essay on the Theory of Relativity.

Take a highlighter and eliminate all of the words: theory or concept.

You will find very little is left.

What is left is truth. For instance, gravity is truth.

There is no reality. There is only perception.

Take a lesson from Schrodinger's cat, always consider the limitations of the observer.

Alvin and the Chipmunks (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 7:04 PM)

Bravo Alan! I checked out Lanza's essay to see what this was all about. Halfway through it, I asked a friend "Is this guy for real?" But afterwards I read the whole thing a few times. I hate to say it, but I think this guy is right on! It's a great piece.

AlbertE, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 7:57 PM)

On the question of how the universe is so life friendly I have a very simple answer. Time is infinite or non existent and the same is true for space. That being said, any formula that includes time or space to calculate probability is a moot point. The big bang could happen an infinite amount of times in an infinite amount of places each time with a different set of physics. It seems that people just assume that there was nothing and the big bang happened and everything was perfect the first time.

I think it is important to look at all possibilities; however, I can’t comprehend how the universe’s existence can be contingent upon conscious perception. From what I understand Robert Lanza is saying that the act of perception dictates whether a photon behaves as a particle or a wave. It would seem more logical that a photon’s behavior is a matter of perception.

Our brains interpret so much data that much of it is summarized, guessed, or just left out and then compiled to create perception. I don’t know how many times I have perceived something that was never there or was something else completely. If you are driving down the road at 70 mph your brain is processing a lot of data, many of the objects you see are not fully processed and perceived on a hunch you could say. Thus the double take; at first you may perceive a bag blowing across the road as dog and slam on the brakes. Was the bag a dog when you first saw it because you perceived it to be? I don’t think so.

Matt Mc, Omaha, NE (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 8:12 PM)

Holly crap! Matrix is!

Jure DOlžan, Celje, Slovenia (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:09 AM)

Has anyone seen a Martian named Smith around recently? Lanza's self serving mis-interprtation of quantum theory provides a prime example of why a specialist in one area of science should avoid thinking that localized genius provides a higher understanding of "all things science". It might make for an entertaining setting for a novel but as science it's wanting.

Jason Isaacs, Oceanside, CA (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:52 AM)

Until the universe ends, we cannot know the goal or purpose of the universe. While any living organism has to be "conscious" in some sense, I don't really think Lanza believes that an amoeba or plant creates its own universe.

Without conciousness of some sort, there is no perception of change, i. e., time. But that is a far cry from saying the universe does not exist.

Some people just don't remember Bishop Berkeley.

Raymond P. Bilodeau, Worcester, MA (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:32 AM)

I think Jeff captures part of the paradox.."This is utter bunk. More evidence of the power of magical thinking. If a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound. Consciousness not required.

"When people can walk through wall or fall UP as a result of their "decisions for the outcome of an event", I'll be convinced.
Jeff Runnels (Sent Friday, March 09, 2007 9:40 AM)"

Why is "reality" dependent upon a sentient being giving it legitimacy ?

All of the great unifying theories seem to be slanted toward the egotism of the observer ! We, as beings, have very little to do with the overarching reality of reality !

Harvey Wharfield (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:11 PM)

"The mind of man, capable of reflection and a coordinated investigation and understanding of itself and its basis and surroundings, arrives at truth but against a background of original ignorance, a truth distressed by a constant surrounding mist of incertitude and error. Its certitudes are relative and for the most part precarious certainties or else are the assured fragmentary certitudes only of an imperfect, incomplete and not an essential experience. It makes discovery after discovery, gets
idea after idea, adds experience to experience and experiment to experiment, - but losing and rejecting and forgetting and having to recover much as it proceeds, - and it tries to establish a relation
between all that it knows by setting up logical and other sequences, a series of principles and their dependences, generalisations and their application, and makes out of its devices a structure in which mentally it can live, move and act and enjoy and labour. This mental knowledge is ALWAYS LIMITED in extent: not only so, but in addition the mind even
sets up other willed barriers, admitting by the mental device of opinion certain parts and sides of truth and excluding all the rest, because if it
gave free admission and play to all ideas, if it suffered truth's infinities, it would lose itself in an unreconciled variety, an undetermined immensity and would be unable to act and proceed to practical
consequences and an effective creation." - Sri Aurobindo

Do you really think one Grand Unified Theory or even the introduction of Biology could explain the Universe ? I admire their effort, but I pity their ignorance.

AcidCrashGuy (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:16 PM)

I actually ran across this in my mailbox about a movie trailer (very well produced) talking about how consciousness will direct reality in 2012. A lot of my teachers in relatively unrelated fields talked about this comming. "From the Americas to Africa, from Tibet to Australasia, these times are seen as pivotal in the evolution of mankind. Ancient prophecies speak of massive earth changes and of a huge shift in Planetary Consciousness. According to the Mayan Long Count Calendar, the last date recorded is the winter solstice - 21st December 2012."

http://www.timeofthesixthsun.com/

It takes a bit to download but it's quite interesting!

Chris Eldridge (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:27 PM)

I marginally agree. I strongly believe in existence, wherein if the whole earth were destroyed, this universe would still exist. Lanza's argument is that observation is required for existence, and yet he doesn't universally define the observer. All of spacetime is observing, and he is forgetting this. I agree that any TOE will address these realities. But Lanza is delusional if he thinks biology will summarily realize a TOE, as is any physicist, and frankly the very concept of finalizing a TOE violates existance itself. As inferred by the many inciteful comments, this place is a process, not a problem in need of a solution.

I also agree with many of the comments that this guy is self-indulgent wherein he seems to think there is a required level of organization to be deemed an "observer". Why are humans any better than an electron? This is good progress, but the thought process is typically Biology-degree.

Brian Litts, Lodi CA (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:57 PM)

In the beginning, God created everything! That same God holds it all together by His powerful Word. Whether you believe it or not does not alter that simple truth!

Flora B. Wading River, NY (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:00 PM)

If consciousness is "shared", some of the difficulty with "wishful thinking" is resolved. Our cells cooperate, and some of the quorum counting behaviour noted in studies of single celled organisms suggest a degree of relatedness among the disparate entities in the 3 billion year cellular prehistory of life. It is probable our cells still "converse" with all those others outside ourselves. Various theories of a "Gaian" mentality do not exactly require singularity of focus, but more an amorphous but universal mixing into mentality of multiple points of aprenhension. We would require comprehension, But, life goes ahead and lives in itself, allowing for comprehension later, as an afterthought.

Edward Murphy, Colma, CA (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:25 PM)

"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao"

....get over it

Ken Goode (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 5:59 PM)

In reading this essay, after getting past the attempts to promote his ideas on the basis of authority, and the 'what if...' questioning of reality, I came to the conclusion he makes the mistake of assuming that the observer derives from biological life, with no other possibilities, and then adds in an error that does not really impact his argument, the assumption that because our universe is ideally suited for the creation of life as we know it, it must have designed that way, as opposed to the idea that ideal situation led to us coming into being in it, as opposed to some more life-hostile universe.

Until he changes his focus from 'Life creates the universe' to 'Observer creates the universe' he'll be mostly just a data and idea generator for other people's work

Marc Remaley (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:20 PM)

This is at the same time not altogether unfamiliar and also a bit weird. If the physical world is a product of biology does this also mean that God does or does not exist according to biology as well?

Tae Kim, Berkeley, California (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:25 PM)

Our existence is infinitesimally probably. True. But how do we know how many chances life has had to come into existence? If, of the billions and billions of stars and planets out there, Earth is the only one to harbor life, then there is no conflict between the fact that we exist and that by all probability, we shouldn't exist.

Next, our brains interpret the energy we "see" into "things" we can "understand." Thus is reality "created". But we need to remember the fact that the energy is already there to be observed, regardless of the observer. Physics is a product of our brain trying to turn our observations of the energy into predictions about the energy. We can't write off seemingly inexplicable phenomena as a product of fabricating our own realities, because then we would never discover anything new. Everything would just be the way it is, simply because that's how we view it, end of story.

JC, Pacific Grove, CA (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:04 PM)

I know old people who are extremely happy and they still get older and die. Observance does nothing to alter reality.

Ron, Manila, Phillipines (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:35 PM)

Science is the art of explaining the Universe, but scientists in general tend to forget Who they are explaining it To, and Why they are Doing so. The Physical Sciences are aimed at figuring out the underlying order of the Universe, but the very basis of Science has had a religious undertone: Since time immemorial people have been using their studies of the universe to verify and prove Their ideas of God, to find out HOW the universe was created and Why it acts the way it does. Any study of the physical that discounts conciousness is not covering all of the bases avaliable, we need to study How and Why conciousness arose and how it works, areas which are so bound up in religion presently that anyone that actually strays into this area gets branded as New Age or worse, but this is where science has been pointed all along, and now we actually have some of the needed tools to be able to do the job. Luckily some scientists have the courage to pursue this study even in the face of ridicule by the religious folks that try to say that such study goes against God. If that were the case then man would have never gotten to this stage of development, food would never have been planted in the cycle of the year and the wheel never invented.

Chuck Sweet, Portland Oregon (Sent Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:24 PM)

The problem with the concept of time as dimensionality

If you review Riemann's famous Hypotheses which underlie geometry habilitation paper, it strikes you that via the concept of an n dimensional manifold there exists a specific manner in which n dimensions carry over or evolve into n+1 dimensions. In spatial dimensions, we can continuously move without affecting or disturbing the quality of the dimension per se. This is what Riemann signified as a continuous manifold. For the purposes of functional space, it is convenient to treat of other characteristics of physical reality such as pressure or temperature as added such dimensions which are likewise continuous. (However, it is the case that this may not quite be true absolutely, e.g. there is an absolute zero for temperature, which is why at or near that region the "normal" laws of physics are seemingly violated.)

Now consider whether this is true of time. How do we move in time? We do so mentally in two directions. Therefore, it appears to the naive first impression to be of a similar quality of dimension as a spatial dimension. In fact, we mark time as a cyclical function through the use of space. However, can we actually, not merely in the imagination or virtually, move backward in time? Is it in any way truly reversible in the sense that the three spatial dimensions are? Obviously and self evidently not. Why then do we blandly accept the concept of physical space-time? Further, why do we wish to indulge in the idea of n dimensionality as anything other than as a useful fiction that serves us to create a sort of functional “space.” Which fiction, however, it must be cautioned, must not be confused with the three “real” physical dimensions. On this score, none other than Riemann himself weighed in. In his philosophical remnants, he discusses time. Its cyclical nature is relative to the system or life form at issue. For example, the scale of time for a tree is far different that that say of a butterfly. However, we do see that biologically there is a unifying metric that is indeed quite physical, i.e. a circadian rhythm determined by the rotation of the earth. Does anyone in his or her right mind suppose that this rotation or cycle may actually be reversed? On the other hand, it is extremely useful and a uniquely human power that we may reverse and move ahead in time in our imagination. Without that power, our judgment in changing our course of action would be impossible. (Sort of like George Bush and company vis-à-vis the war in Iraq.)

The question is then, does the mathematics of relativity permit us to think of time (or the speed of light) as a dimension in the same sense as the real physical continuum? How is the mind immanent in these dimensions? What is the limit of the transmission of ideas over physical space and time? Faster than the speed of light? Can an idea be truly transmitted effectually ?

Bob, Baltimore, MD (Sent Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:55 AM)

I think Mr. Lanza is bringing a revolution that is founding the basis of Excellency in human intelligence. Think about it; Neurons! on their own! this should have a connection with light and electric activity, and perhaps speed of light. Why not! For example: a futuristic approach of what we do now; Take an enhanced sort of MRI that detects the molecular and sub molecular component of the body in a well mapped scheme, the futuristic MRI system send messages to a biochemophysical reactor that finally translates those messages to a real person's body millions or billion miles away in the universe. Don't know how to clone animal and people? I mean Mr. Lanza is really genius by proposing the marriage of physics and biology, I know this will bring us closer to realizing how can we use our intelligence efficiently. Another example! How come a picture of person or a thing travels alone and reflects on the mirror leaving the real body behind? I know the deal; the problem is that the mirror is not apt to host a physical body whatsoever. We need to build the ultimate mirror that will take us anywhere we want. I know how! but I only know that it will involve Biological, Physical and chemical tactics. Proof: if there was no mirror in front of you, would your picture (or futuristic MRI scan) still travel in space in every direction! OF course it would!

You know! our problems, humans, is our perception. Our creator gave us just enough sense so we can realize how to get where he wanted us to be. This means that we should examine and enhance our selves to build the ultimate Human that is capable to do whatever bests (best is the verb here) him. So yeah the answer lies in the neurons that has and electric current which in turn attracts and arranges many molecules in a well determined order to create the body. So if we know that well determined order functionalities we can do a lot more than what we expect. I believe in evolution and history our history makes us. Our intelligence is evolutionary and our brains are now exposed an unprecedented number of bits, and that will eventually booster our intelligence, memory and perception of things. Mr. Lanza keep pushing for this one it will serves us best and will make moon and star missions easier for our kids.

Sam, Chandler, AZ (Sent Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:29 PM)

It is fortunate that any comment made, any concept formulated, any idea at all -- is framed and dependent upon a matrix of invisible threads. Were it not so (invisible), there would be no apparent difference between one existence quantum and another. In other words, I would not be able to tell myself from you, or even my left hand from my right, if the ‘frame-work’ of consciousness was materially perceptible. Or even mentally perceptible. Both denials are ‘true’, but I won’t say they’re ‘factual.’

This argument can be presented as logically conclusive through sophist theology, and can be used (perhaps not convincingly to the Realist) that the assertions ‘nothing is real’ and ‘Nothing is real’ are both equal and opposite theories, and both ‘true’, and perhaps factual, based on individual results. (your results may differ)

What is this gobbledy-gook I’m writing mean? “Reality(s) [state(s)-of-consciousness] is/are based on ‘Nothing’ (pure-consciousness).” This would be my first attempt to phrase it simply, but most readers without a personal experience-context of Nothing’s reality would require an immense argument of binding and boundary definitions, as well as a plethora of mechanically-based references, before they would give It any critical credibility. But how can any realist extend their provisional acceptance when the argument would include statements like, “consciousness is not limited to living mechanisms” or “there are five fundamental elements that make up the physical universe (earth, water, air, fire and ether)” or “of course, there ARE a relatively finite number of categorical realities beyond the physical plane/membrane, principally, astral, causal, mental and levels of pure consciousness (soul).” It would ultimately be “point-less”, which is my point here.

Simplistic explanations will not satisfy the hard-core realist/existentialist, and complex logic-structures will be rejected by (most) spiritualists, and anyone who believes that family is the most important thing will not make the sacrificial leap it takes to really know what one teacher meant when saying, “Love One’s neighbor (as you love your Self).” It’s all too big to put into words, but that does not mean one cannot understand… I’m just saying it takes a One to know One, and It takes You to be Me. Or something like that. Whatever. Nietzsche was human, and is not dead. Go Bears. Please like me.

Bil Clement, Woo Woo (Santa Fe), NM (Sent Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:41 PM)

This is an old debate of epistemology going back to the Greeks; 'How do you know what you know' and Descartes ('Cogito ergo sum').

It seems to me that if you follow Lanza's logic the conclusion is that we are all living a dream world(s) where some aspects of reality are collectively hardwired into our consciousness, while other aspects are individually existent.

plato jr (Sent Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:29 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=85328

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG