Theory of every-living-thing

Ralph Garner, Merritt Island, Florida — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:41:12 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Cheyenne Young, Santa Cruz, CA — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:02:24 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Jaycubed, Santa Rosa, CA — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:52:21 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:42:40 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:31:44 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:04:46 GMT

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."

Theory of every-living-thing

John Nelson — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:13:08 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

James Negri, Lakeland FL — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:23:15 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Tony LaMere, Minneapolis, MN — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:29:38 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Jeff Runnels — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:40:24 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Dr. John French , Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, U.S.A. — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:47:05 GMT

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?"

Theory of every-living-thing

Bob Brister, Panama City FL — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:54:48 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Richard Horn, McKinney TX — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:17:24 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

John Galt — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:01:12 GMT

This doesn't belong under the category of Science.

Theory of every-living-thing

JC, Riverton, CT — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:05:57 GMT

The Russian experiments in altering DNA via Hypercommunication are interesting.

Think happy thoughts so you don't get cancer.

Theory of every-living-thing

JC, Riverton, CT — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:10:14 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:30:49 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Guy Newell — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:09:34 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Paul Chitwood, PhD Sacramento, CA — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:15:55 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

L. E. Finney, Laguna Niguel, CA — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:21:44 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Matthew Sklar -- Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:39:22 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Starchild, Oconomowoc, WI — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:38:50 GMT

Dudes, like, everything is connected...

Theory of every-living-thing

Dave Burwasser, Oberlin, Ohio — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:26:08 GMT

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

Theory of every-living-thing

Brian C — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:30:00 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Patrick, Chicago — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:36:37 GMT

Cheyenne,

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

Theory of every-living-thing

Robert Horn — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:58:26 GMT

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

Theory of every-living-thing

Dan Atwater, Missoula MT — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:02:49 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

John Charles Webb, Jr. Formerly of FlatLand — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:28:20 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Alvin and the Chipmunks — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:04:37 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

AlbertE, Philadelphia, PA — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:57:36 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Matt Mc, Omaha, NE — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:12:31 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Jure DOlžan, Celje, Slovenia — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:09:44 GMT

Holly crap! Matrix is!

Theory of every-living-thing

Jason Isaacs, Oceanside, CA — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:52:45 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Raymond P. Bilodeau, Worcester, MA — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:32:27 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Harvey Wharfield — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:11:25 GMT

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 !

Theory of every-living-thing

AcidCrashGuy — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:16:13 GMT

"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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Chris Eldridge — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:27:46 GMT

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!

Theory of every-living-thing

Brian Litts, Lodi CA — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:57:53 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Flora B. Wading River, NY — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:00:13 GMT

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!

Theory of every-living-thing

Edward Murphy, Colma, CA — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:25:48 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Ken Goode — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:59:46 GMT

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

....get over it

Theory of every-living-thing

Marc Remaley — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:20:59 GMT

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

Theory of every-living-thing

Tae Kim, Berkeley, California — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:25:10 GMT

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?

Theory of every-living-thing

JC, Pacific Grove, CA — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:04:44 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Ron, Manila, Phillipines — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:35:01 GMT

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

Theory of every-living-thing

Chuck Sweet, Portland Oregon — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:24:19 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Bob, Baltimore, MD — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:55:35 GMT

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 ?

Theory of every-living-thing

Sam, Chandler, AZ — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:29:43 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

Bil Clement, Woo Woo (Santa Fe), NM — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:41:20 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

plato jr — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:29:16 GMT

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.

Theory of every-living-thing

tom brown joplin missouri — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:43:54 GMT

i think ----- therefore i am ?

Theory of every-living-thing

DGDanforth, Cleveland, OH — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:45:17 GMT

"What the frog's eye tells the frog's brain" is a book by H.R. Maturana that discuss how our sensory apparatus effect our knowledge of the world. As others in these comments have said "Nothing new here". By the way, the issue of quantum "weirdness" is still open since the loophole of detector efficiency has not yet been closed. Hence to generalize concepts in quantum mechanics that use the "observer" to biology is very questionable.

Theory of every-living-thing

John Doe, MY — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:55:31 GMT

I think all the comments are written by Christian? Ask a buddist (the real one please), it'll all make sense. To venture further, read "What the Buddha Taught). Everything in impernanent. Just my 2 cents. Thanks.

Theory of every-living-thing

sam — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:00:06 GMT

Yeah, the theory of everything should include biology physics and chemistry and everything else that may have effect on life and what we know as non-life.

My opinion is that Mr. lanza is contributing to the truth by adapting this theory of everything thing.

I mean the truth as whole is what we perceive and what we don’t. Even if Mr. Lanza thinks that the theory of everything is the truth of everything, he still at least discovering a drop of that truth, if not an ocean of it.

The only part of the truth that we know is what we experienced so far (all the humans and animals together).Remember the saying: all roads take to Rome that is true all roads take to the ultimate truth. Whether you do what you do or don’t, what you do think or don't think are part of the truth. The truth is that we do exist and that we contribute to making the road to that truth everyday. Here is the truth; the truth is what we know ,what don't know, what we think we know and what we think we don't know. The truth is an idea and a process. The truth is not completely determined by us , yeah we contribute to making truth of the universe but my be to a very small extent.

Here is the thing; Mr. Lanza is contributing to making our part of the truth which matters most to us. I mean we can not talk about us taking over the truth of everything, that won't happen until we first conquer our own truth; our everything truth not the whole universe’ everything truth.

We can summarize our truth in our imagination or idea. Our truth is our ideas and thoughts, therefore we will not workup our truth until we experience everything we can think of. For example if you die your thought are a part our truth unless another person that lives after you experience those thoughts in reality. I know there will be repetitions in thoughts but regardless of that everyone's thoughts has to be materialized or realized that's a requirement for our everything truth to be fully met.
Now we've met our truth and we experienced everything went in our minds, we will obviously start comprehending the universe's truth. But since we a part of the universes truth we are in game already, so our truth contributes to the universe's truth they go along together.

Theory of every-living-thing

Patrick Haugen — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:15:53 GMT

We do not need "time". It is the comfort food of physics. Consider our desire for "real time" information. Is the alternative "fake time"?

As beings who call themselves human we would still "be" without time. I do think we need space to be. In fact I am sure of it.

I am still wrestling with the necessity of Zero. Is there always something there? Today I think there is always something there, so the null set and/or zero really are something.

Think how much more clearly we could conceive of the fabric of space and the interconnectedness of it if we did not demand to know when. No beginning, no end. Same as it ever was. Life is, no comprehension or perception needed.

Theory of every-living-thing

Bill McIntosh — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:24:08 GMT

Please let me live And enjoy the mystery and awe of life. I am still trying to figuer out infinity.

Theory of every-living-thing

Bob Jacobs — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:30:16 GMT

If Abbott was implying that we are the two-dimensionally imprisoned flatlanders, how are we to progress in our comprehension of the great mystery of existence? Refer to the written legacy of Rudolf Steiner and Max Heindel for the conceptual road map. What is to be found beyond the empirically observable universe and why "nearly" all of us are not currently experiencing this reality in our conscious day-to-day existence? How far into the future you wish to travel is a function of how much isolation you can endure and how much you wish to serve others in an anonymous manner. Each on of us makes that choice consciously or otherwise.

Theory of every-living-thing

Mason Flake — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:47:30 GMT

The higher cannot be created by anything of a lesser nature. It seems that science, religion, and philosophy are beginning to merge to bring mankind to the true reality. Quantum Physics has taken us to the beginning of all creation. Vibrating strings of energy create our reality as a manifestation of matter. Consider the possibility of these vibrations as being the Mind activity of a Supreme Power, Mind is creative and precedes every manifestation within the physical world that we occupy. Ervin Lazlo wrote the book “Science and the Akashic Field, an integral theory of everything,” which has taken us a step closer to a Universal Mind. It seems that science is dancing all around the acceptance of a Deity. Consider the possibility of a Spiritual interaction with the human brain which produces the consciousness that appears as our means of perception. Far out ? Maybe not.

Theory of every-living-thing

JC Peralta — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:07:34 GMT

An open mind allows for learning. Stop pushing your agendas!

Theory of every-living-thing

Sam D — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:10:19 GMT

Why does it always come back to how significant man is in the universe. I think the universe would be just fine without us and without us that theory is nothing. We are insignificant but we don't like to think that way.

Theory of every-living-thing

kilamanjaro — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:17:14 GMT

The challenge present physics has that Robert Lanza points out is that we're here but remain - in terms of our awareness and, further, consciousness - almost scrupulously written out of physics. Present understandings of quantum mechanics notwithstanding. Any complete theory of everything is not going to be a theory of EVERY thing, thought, thema, and thrust (action) if its foundations do not give rise to an explanation of our organization, our cybernetics, and our sensation, perception, awareness, consciousness, self-consciousness, and super-consciousness. Is it? It'll be close if it covers everthing BUT us, but that's not quite the same claim to fame.

Decades ago Arthur C. Clarke made a prediction that the Nobel Prize in the year 2000 would be awarded for "The Study of Consciousness." His timing is off but I think his targeting is dead on. If Physics finds the will and courage to make, as it one day must (or cease to be physics), another leap into the abyss beyond, it will 'grow up'. And out. Again. And if that leap is great enough perhaps we'll have to rename it. But as Kuhn observed there's the friction of paradigm inertia and resistance to change. Quantum mechanics took the slow passing of a past generation before it made it out of the womb of daring minds, and, roughly, another 40 years (1927~67) before it got up a head of steam on ever younger shoulders.

Speaking of QM, it's interesting to read about the important-sounding condemnations of Lanza's grasp of QM from those who seem, from their own comments (and in my limited opinion), rather clueless themselves! John von Neumann summed quantum logic (the descriptive framework for QM) this way: "A state of being is an experience. A description of a state of being is a symbol. Symbols and experiences do not follow the same rules." In 1936, Von Neumann, along with Garrett Birkhoff, published a paper that, in laying the grounds for quantum logic - along with a later reformulation of quantum mechanics done with Wigner - disproved the universality of both classical Aristotelian logic and its modern symbolic form, which until then had been accepted without question as a natural reflection of the nature of reality. The rules that symbols follow they called classical logic. The rules experience follows they called quantum logic. It seems to me that when JVN spoke of "experience" he was talking about 'us' (as 'observers'). Or, as Richard Feynmann wrote in 1981, " NATURE ISN'T CLASSICAL, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of nature, you'd better MAKE IT QUANTUM MECHANICAL, and by golly it's a wonderful problem because it doesn't look easy." Last time I checked humans are still considered part of nature and any theory that (finally) claims to explain nature had better not write us out of its descriptions!

Deeper still in QM and often underappreciated it seems, from some of the comments made here, in its implications for an intrinsic relatedness in "Physics as Consciousness" is Bell's Theorem. In 1964, John S. Bell, a physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland, proved a theorem that zeroed in on a a strange connectedness among quantum phenomena that is becoming one of the central preoccupations of early 21st century physics. Bell’s theorem proves that if the statistical predictions of quantum theory are correct, the “principle of local causes” fails. That is, in plainer terms, no theory of reality compatible with quantum theory can require spatially separate events to be independent. If so, then at a deep and fundamental level the “separate parts” of the universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way, and some of our commonsense ideas about the world are profoundly mistaken, and in a way that those commonsense ideas are inadequate even to describe macroscopic events, events of the everyday world! Forty-five years of reformulations and stringent real world tests verify Bell’s theorem that projects the “irrational” aspects of subatomic phenomena squarely into the macroscopic domains of trains and television. And of you and I.

The early part of the 20th century rewove the fabric of our understanding of the universe to include a fundamental uncertainty on which - with electronics, atomics and computers - we have built the modern world. More recently, information physics, chaos, complexity and other theories rationally demonstrate and have begun to experimentally confirm that this uncertainty scales, and is in fact implicate in all structures and processes, and in the very fabric and process of 'reality' itself. There is now a growing realization albeit a slow visceral acceptance, that not only is reality not classical, but it is increasingly evident that macroscopic phenomena on every scale, and in every place reflect, embody and enact detectable information states, quantum traits and stochastic behaviors heretofore unsuspected. A strange, vibrating unity seems to underlie existence. And the world is not as it seems, nor as it popularly, or otherwise appears.

To paraphrase John Charles Webb Jr (formerly of Flatland) writing up above and before me: The questions physicists long to answer about nature are bound up with the problem of consciousness. Physics as it stands, even with the rustlings of the relationist interpretations of QM or the exciting explorations of Matti Pitskanen (Quantum Geometrodynamics) can presently furnish no final answers for them. Somewhere, already I suspect, some new giant as we'll come to see her (ah! or him) (or a group of them) is playing in plain sight with the equations out from which information, mass, and energy are intrinsically related as different forms of something deeper and in a manner that speaks a natural dialect of self-organization and awareness. Will it, or whatever constitutes the next revolution ever really be a "Theory of Everything"? I doubt it. As Terence McKenna is quoted as saying “As the bonfires of knowledge grow brighter, the more the darkness is revealed to our startled eyes." And a large darkness I think it will remain for sometime to come. Ever more exploration, experiencing, becoming!

Theory of every-living-thing

Louis Kuuhelj, Rochester, New York — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:19:43 GMT

If everything is nothing more than a construct of our mind then nothing that we perceive is real. If we are not real, how can we know it?

Theory of every-living-thing

Sotiris Athanasiou, Athens, Greece — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:25:42 GMT

Pretty interesting theory

Theory of every-living-thing

Israel Falcone, Centerville, NY — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:30:54 GMT

I agree with Flora B. Wading River, NY.

As humans we are always trying to assign relationships to causalities. It is in our nature to look for order. However, if the universe was just a random occurrence and we are random products then why do we look for these rules, and arrangements of relationships into what we classify as order. Unless there is order and was order before the beginning of all that we know. In which case we must ask do we see and look for order because there was order. So, was man created by a random universe or was the universe created for a man that believes there is more than random that are rules that govern the universe by someone outside the universe whose arrangement of this universe(s) points to Him as the author of the order.

Theory of every-living-thing

christopher. New York City, New York — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:35:57 GMT

If self consciousness remains after the organism dies as memory then is true that we make our own reality.

Theory of every-living-thing

anon — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:44:54 GMT

Personally I think he is trying to get more funding for his biology works here. Humans have been perceiving the same reality for quite some time. The earth does not look square to some people and everyone has their slight differences in how they interrept such things but the fact is reality comes from the environment we live in. Luckily enough we adapt to such environments and survive. Over the past 100 years physicists have not made a big leap? Albert Einstein died in 1955. If I recall he was definitely the biggest contributor to physicists of his time and of ours still today. His work may of not discovered what the "foundation" of the world is but he advanced the understandings of what really goes on in the every day world.

Theory of every-living-thing

Mark Kantrowitz, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:53:02 GMT

Lanza's thesis is a restatement of the idea that solipsism is the only ultimately defensible philosophy.

There is a basic fallacy in his assumption of a causal relationship between our ability to observe the world and the rare set of conditions that permitted the development of life and consciousness. That these should co-occur is unremarkable; it would be much more surprising if one were to occur without the other. There is no lucky fortuitiveness.

An analogy to predicting future price movement of a stock might help illustrate. Suppose you send a stock newsletter to 1,024 people; in half the newsletters you predict that a specific stock will increase in price and in half you predict that it will decrease in price. You will thus be correct for 500 of the recipients. You repeat this process a total of 7 times. For 8 of the recipients, your predictions will have been 100% correct. For 512, you will have been right more often than wrong. Most will rationalize the errors and become true believers. So given large enough of a population, you can appear to be a genius to half the population by relying on a short chain of random, meaningless events. The development of life and consciousness is perhaps no different. While we may not currently understand the processes that resulted in our existence, that speaks more to the primitive state of our knowledge and mental development than the necessity for an unspecified set of magical or spiritual forces. It doesn't that the scenario Lanza describes cannot exist, just that his thesis is little more than idle speculation in an absence of facts.

Theory of every-living-thing

J. Larson, + Arizona — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:00:28 GMT

I thought Mr. Sagan called this the "Anthropic Principle" Since we perceive both possibilities then somehow we're the link.

I'm Spartacus!

No!..I'm Spartac..

...

Theory of every-living-thing

J Daniel D, Port Jefferson NY — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:00:44 GMT

I'm going to read this over again.

Theory of every-living-thing

Michael Paul Feldman, Philadelphia PA — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:07:27 GMT

Reality is the intersection between our perceptions and the unlimited possibilities of the multiverse.

Theory of every-living-thing

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:09:28 GMT

Alan - I read and re-read Lanza's theory and I'm still not sure if this is more philosophical grist for our mental mills or hard scientific observations. Any observer must put himself outside his observations or risk becoming part of the observed.

A lot of his examples are not applicable in this instance, I fear. Descartes, to prove his separate existence, said "I think, therefore I am" but he did not include the universe; the rock at his feet remains a rock, unthinking but still existing.

"Moving" pictures are a series of photographs projected in sync with the retention qualities of human eyes; birds, insects, other animals can see the individual pictures, but we "see" motion. Lanza's Arrow cannot be stopped in the momentum applied to it by the bow which launched it by observation, but only by recording it mechanically. Our observations of the nebulae far off in space (and time) appear stationary but we know absolutely that they are maelstroms of activity, roiling and turning, becoming new suns and planetary systems.

I, too, can 'prove' that you and I can never 'meet' whether we are across the room or across the continent from each other. Before we can shake hands we must somehow divide the distance between us in half; then we must repeat the procedure, cutting the distance remaining in half again. And no matter what the remaining distance becomes, it will always be something, preventing us from ever touching each other's hand.

Macro and micro worlds aside, two Hydrogen atoms will join one Oxygen atom whenever the opportunity arises and form water. The individual atoms do not observe each other and make choices, and neither do we. If stem cells propagate their own neurons, it's because that is what they are supposed to do. Man then intervenes and makes those cells into blood or skin or bones; if left alone in the body which made them they will naturally become the blood and skin and bones of their host.

Finally, it was the Montreal poet Leonard Cohen who wrote about the cracks in the world being there to let in the light. Another philosopher, not a scientist, and just as necessary as Robert Lanza for a more complete understanding of conscious life and why we have always sought knowledge of everything surrounding us since we left the Garden of Eden.

Theory of every-living-thing

Rev. Dr. Rodney E. Langley — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:10:30 GMT

Strange, I've had these conversations before, as I am having them now, and will in future. There seems to be only very slight change in my perception of these events as they have occurred in this space-time continuum as expressed by the E=MC2 triangulation of events theorized in Einstein's equation, however, I feel as we ARE a part of all existence, we impart our reality ON existence, as we OBSERVE existence, and thus EXIST. We are that we are, thus we are, we ARE one, and thus all things thought to exist are brought into existence by our thinking, I AM that I AM.

Theory of every-living-thing

Prunella Scales, PhD — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:20:42 GMT

How did this make the news - complete bunk. The journal that published this should be imbarressed

Theory of every-living-thing

Scott Smith, Springfield IL — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:33:01 GMT

Ever since I heard of the experiment at the University of Illinois where they built a quantum calculator that can work even when it's "off" I realized that impossible/quantum events can happen at the macro level. This, plus some very difficult-to-ignore evidence of human psycho-kinetic abilities, and the simple observation that some people are luckier than others has led me to a simple theory: Living creatures draw on some power (possibly the energy from the sun) to increase their own chances of survival. I like to call this the "lucky" gene, and I do believe it exists. It won't be long before physicists begin pursuing this avenue of inquiry. There is a generally agreed-upon principle that the possibility of life anywhere is so remote that it approaches impossibility. But if stars and other high energy systems bathe chemicals in some sort of quantum "luck", then good things happen to those that want it most. The observer, then, makes his own luck by his very existence. Life wants to live, and those critters that draw upon that invisible but undeniable power the most get to survive. Call it a genetic-quantum interaction. Stem cells certainly are remarkable, and I'm sure they somehow are involved. Mostly, such cells are wonders of creation and amazingly unlikely...yet they exist. Don't give me this "it's just statistics" clamor. Something in the universe likes to cheat the odds, and we well know that that something exists at the quantum level. We have no reason to believe it does not spill over into our own mere 4 dimensional existence.

Theory of every-living-thing

Chris, Athens, GA — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:08:20 GMT

Hmmm... The universe is here for my benefit. Zafod Beeblebrox would agree. Certainly dubya would agree. A lovely metanoia - opposite of the ultimate paranoia. I picture a behemoth "ZOT!" frying Mr. Lanza to a cinder, reminiscent of Johnny Hart's comic 'B.C.'

11 dimensions aside, most of our species walks blindly backward into the future. Mr. Lanza's theory must therefore only be a reflection of a shadow of what actually is. I cannot help suspecting there is some serious conflation in his argument.

Theory of every-living-thing

Tom Grant, Buffalo, NY — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:16:35 GMT

While an interesting article, it still doesn't answer the question of why there is something as opposed to nothing. Lanza seems to claim that the reason why physicists haven't solved everything is due to their insistence on objective reality as opposed to subjective. However, we have defined our physical laws based on objectivity, and in order to satisfy those laws we should be able to come up with an objective answer. Just because an observer may in fact determine his own reality, even on a physical level and not just mental, does not mean that objectivity is invalid, all it means is that an observer defines his reality, these are not contradictory. A common notion is that the absence of everything is nothing, as this is how we have defined it. What if, however, our definition was invalid. What if the absence of everything wasn't nothing. What if the reason why there is something instead of nothing is because nothing is invalid, that the null set doesn't exist. Physics has yet to answer the question, as has all science, even this very clever essay only says that things exist because we exist to make them exist, but why do we exist? why does existence exist? The only answer to this is that something exists because nothing isn't an option, otherwise there would be no reason for something, because if at any point there was nothing, then there would have been no randomness to produce something, since randomness can't exist if nothing exists. so something must exist eternally, outside of our observational limits, or outside of any limits, comprehensible or incomprehensible. You can believe this "something" to be whatever you want. I believe that it is God, and that His Word, the Bible, explains the answers to all these questions and more if you allow His Spirit to show you truth. If I have convinced anyone, all you need to do to secure your eternity with Him is repent, meaning change your thinking and behavior to agree with His Word, and believe, rely on, and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I am a physicist, biologist, chemist, and mathematician, having a bachelors of science and working towards a PhD, and I have studied heavily most aspects of science, and while they all astonish me to great degree, none can compare to the amazing revelation that God has shown me through His Word, a working, practical understanding of how everything works. I don't claim to know it all, in fact what I do know is that I know little compared to what He still has to show me, but everything He has shown me is far greater than science, as cool as it is. And He is so exciting, to know Him IS eternal life, so says His Word, look it up for yourself, its in John, in red letters.

Theory of every-living-thing

Pallavi Jesrani, Austin TX — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:32:00 GMT

Isn't this something we all knew a little about already?

how about "time seems to fly us by in happier times and moves ever so slowly in lesser fortunate time" that is our own perception of time,isn't it?. And retrocausality? isnt that what we common folk refer to as wisdom? "in the end ,it happenned for a good reason" . that's how we retrospectively try to view many of the bad situations in life,trying to learn something from them. While I liked the essay, it does seem like giving age-old philosophy a new "reality"(read "perception"):-) and wouldn't you love to say to your boss "I forgot you existed since you went out of sight"..hmmm that reminds me of another old saying.."out of sight,out of mind"..Does that apply here too?

Theory of every-living-thing

greg — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:20:25 GMT

Theories, non-theories. There are as many of these as there are egoes in this sea of illusion and that is my theory LOL - love to you all xxx

Theory of every-living-thing

Tman, Dallas, TX — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:18:05 GMT

The author is not saying that we manufacture what ever is feeding our senses. Rather, we understand reality to be our brain's processed output of these sensory inputs. We create collections of rules based on our measurements of the changes in our sensory input information that many times do allow us to create other informational inputs that we desire. But we still have no way of knowing what is actually feeding this information to us. Our reality is based on change in changes, where _everything_ is change relative to another change.

The term "sensory input" refering to a difference between the current sensed change and the last sensed change. All sensory input is measurement, and measurement is change caused by difference between two other changes.

The term "information" refering to a measured change in sensory input using memory as the reference changes to compare against.

Term "sensed" refering to what ever "we" are. And the term "create" refering to "we" being able to change the probability that incoming sensory changes will change in some desired way.

In fact, there is no one single reality because reality is simply the interpretation of some unknown external process that is sending changing changes (information) into our sensory system. The interpretation function built into our biological systems in this reality should by no means be the only one. And the true nature of the unknown thing(s) sending changes into our reality can probably never be known or understood. And notice that we interpret reality as changing changes (second order differential) which may have something to do with why we see 3-dimension "space" and also live in "time".

Theory of every-living-thing

Dr. David A. Engstrøm, Copenhagen, Denmark — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:45:38 GMT

It is obvious from the many rather extreme opinions about this article that it strikes a nerve. Theories of Everything usually do. In fact, any time an attempt at reconciling what appear to be contraries or polar extremes of life, as in physics vs. biology and mind vs. body--passionate debate follows. What frustrates many is the suspicion that in the end, it's just talk, more metaphors, more opinions. The promise of actually grounding proposed theories in demonstrable, repeatable, scientific experiments is rarely fulfilled. In this regard, the eminent scientist J. A. Scott Kelso and I have recently written a book called "The Complementary Nature" (published by MIT Press, 2006). In it, we give many historical examples of contraries and their attempted reconciliations, that lead to what we call the "philosophy of complementary pairs." But then, most relevant to the current discussion, we GROUND our philosophical stance in an on-going theoretical~experimental science of coordination called "Coordination dynamics". Coordination Dynamics is an active, interdisciplinary field of science pursued in many labs around the world. I think that most of the people responding to this current article, and certainly Robert Lanza, might find this book quite useful in the context of the current discussion, and others like it. It is our hope that "The Complementary Nature" is even now inspiring change in real observers, real human beings--as it discusses polarizations and reconciliations of human thought, and the coordination dynamics of human brain~behavior, about what might actually be going on in the head of a real observer, really observing!

Theory of every-living-thing

Jack — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:04:32 GMT

He's on track as far as what I call individual Viewport theory. Actually this type of theory was batted around allot in the 1990s with books like The Emperor's New Mind and Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics; but now we realize that the combination of general and special relativity would need to create a stable universe because of the conservation of mass law.

Theory of every-living-thing

Chris, Athens, GA — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:45:33 GMT

Pallavi, Reality and perception are two different things. By the time we perceive an action, it has already occured. To illustrate, we won't see a solar flare from earth until eight minutes after it's happened. Wisdom comes from remembering what's happened before and attempting to anticipate what may happen based on previous experience. That is precisely what I mean by walking blindy backwards into the future. Most of us don't actually look in the direction of the future - we use previous experiences to compensate for that blindness.

It's also the reason why science will continue only be another religion or philosophy until we are capable of actually facing the future - and other axes of reality. It has its precepts, priests, prophets and pariahs, just like any other religion or philosophy. Theories are just that. Theory. Lanza proposes that theory creates reality. There are older conflicting theories that still hold water: some gnostics might suggest that we are simply born knowing and that as we grow up, our intuitive grok is compromised by - you guessed it - theory. While we can amuse ourselves with such mental masturbation, let's not confuse it with reality.

Theory of every-living-thing

Jack Lyons, Amman, Jordan — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:40:39 GMT

Baffling and challenging. As a Christian, we face many baffling mysteries - as baffling as the two-holes theory and more. One of them is trinity or triune divinity. As we are told we are in this divinities image, we expect to be triune in our nature - perhaps like our divinity ("I am who am - I am being who is being): being conscious (Father), observing (Word),interpreting which gives the reality (the Holy Spirit). I am grappling not to justify my belief but to see if there is anything to it). I am thanking you ....

Theory of every-living-thing

Jack Lyons — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:59:21 GMT

Triunity of us: being/am-ing/ia-ing needs a triunity of acting: the act of being, the consciousness or recognition of our being and the interpreting of our observing to conclude that we are being.

Theory of every-living-thing

Wayne Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:25:20 GMT

There's one thing that can be said about Mr. Lanza's article, it was thought provoking (as shown by all the comments). Of course we all make our own reality. What we perceive with our senses is the world we each individually live in. Some people see the world around them and say "I'm here by accident and therefore I have no purpose in life." And in their own reality, that may be true. Others look from behind their eyes and see wonder and grandeur in the world around them and think, "I'm not an accident, I'm here for a purpose."

As has been discussed in past discussions here on your website, science and philosophy don't mix. Adding religious beliefs in only confuses the matter. Articles like this one are good in that they stimulate critical thinking and make us all focus on what is real and important in our lives. Understanding the how we got here is interesting, but for me, understanding the why is what brings happiness and enjoyment to my life (reality). Im on a journey that will end all too soon, but while I'm here on this earth, I'm going to Enjoy The Ride....

Enjoy The Ride by Jana Stanfield

Life is a fast train through peaks and valleys, streets and alleys, and countryside.

You never know just how far you’re going, the trick is to learn to enjoy the ride.

We have our baggage packed in childhood, it holds us back ‘til we let it go.

But on this journey of a lifetime, you can go fast or you can go slow.

So why do I scare myself like a backseat driver, thinking of train wrecks most of the time.

But as I analyze, theorize, philosophize, the trick is to learn to enjoy the ride.

Theory of every-living-thing

Matthew D., Dallas Tx. — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:55:11 GMT

Ahh... "donde comenzar?"

Forgive me, being the ardent amante of mathematics and physics that I am, but some of our biology friends are forgetting the history of science: the driving achievement of modern science is that we look always for more ELEMENTARY structure. I.e. we don't settle for Aristotle's four elements, when we can resolve water into more elementary subunits, the molecule, the atom, the nucleus, proton, quark, etc.

While Lanza may have some interesting stuff to say, the question is always this: will it help quantitative science? Or waste time?

He's not making friends very quickly with some of us with statements like: "Einstein assigned tortuous mathematical properties to an invisible, intangible entity" (referring to Gen. Relativity). A fear of mathematics is a big red flag for "fear of science/reality" - just as it is with Darwinists and other psuedo scientists who want to talk in nice, fuzzy terms.

-exno.blogspot.com

Theory of every-living-thing

Ruth K. Ohio — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:24:02 GMT

AWESOME - some one on the right track. Yes we are all one even if you don't want to see or believe it. It is truth and there is nothing anyone can do about it even in death you will still be one with all life. We are all one Light just millions of different rays on our own pathes. What comes down must go up, yes thats right you heard it gravity may say what goes up must come down but it is really the other way around we all came down from the light so therefore we must all go back up into the light. I hate to say it but it is some of our highest religious figures that have know this but have keep it from us, for if everyone new and believed in this They would lose their hold on our thoughts and then who would follow them.

Theory of every-living-thing

Richard Wolfef — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:59:27 GMT

Flora: grow up, you don't need Daddy (or Mommy if you want to posit that God has a female gender) anymore, leave the nest, get over it. If you believe God created everything, then ask yourself who created God. That starts you down that slippery slope akin to the position where you have the world on the back of a horse, standing on a giant turtle, floating in an ocean ad infinitum. If you say no one created God and that(S)He is self existant, then neither do you have to say that anyone created the universe. The Law of Economy, Occam's razor, and lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness or parsimony) suggest the simplest explanation is usually the best.

Theory of every-living-thing

Richard Wolfef — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:01:10 GMT

You don't need Daddy (or Mommy if you want to posit that God has a female gender) anymore, leave the nest, get over it. If you believe God created everything, then ask yourself who created God. That starts you down that slippery slope akin to the position where you have the world on the back of a horse, standing on a giant turtle, floating in an ocean ad infinitum. If you say no one created God and that(S)He is self existant, then neither do you have to say that anyone created the universe. The Law of Economy, Occam's razor, and lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness or parsimony) suggest the simplest explanation is usually the best.

Theory of every-living-thing

Russel, Tel Aviv, Israel — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:19:51 GMT

He's right, but then this is what the mystics have bene telling us all along. I must say I enjoyed reading his essay, in fact it made me laugh out loud with pleasure every time he connected the dots.

From my own experience I've noticed more than once that the power of visualisation, when applied consistantly, has an amazing ability to shape reality.

Warning: Use with Caution, Kids.

Theory of every-living-thing

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:05:33 GMT

'I y'am what I y'am and thats all that I y'am"

-Popeye

Theory of every-living-thing

Dennis McClain-Furmanski PhD, Arlington TX — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:09:23 GMT

Ah, consciousness. Supposedly so necessary, but so impossible to define. This is because it's a subjective phenomenon, and therefore has no place in science. As a neuroscientist who has interacted with all manner of people who have for the last decade attempted and failed to define it, much less study it, I can tell you I have had my fill of all the "Yeah, but!" baseless hypothesizing.

There is an enormous universe out there, and the vast majority of it goes its merry way carrying out physical processes without any observation being involved. It certainly got an awful long way in its evolution before anything developed a light sensitive organelle with which to detect what was supposedly created by itself for its own benefit.

I studied under Karl Pribram, who developed a theory with the help of physicist David Bohm (and still works on it with Bohm's partner Basil Hiley) which said that the mathematics developed by Dennis Gabor to describe a hologram could be used to describe the highly complex and dynamic interaction of electrical fields created by neurons in the brain. Others took this to mean that the brain was a hologram, and still others extended it to say that the holographic brain created a holographic universe because we are, after all, the observers the universe requires and was built for and by. This is most assuredly not what was intended by Pribram and Bohm, yet far more people have read and believe the clap trap inventions than the original work. Very few CAN read the original work. It is very difficult science. All the rest is just moths who just happen to be flying through the light and pay it little attention, and understand it not at all, nor care to.

For an instructive exercise of what happens to theories such as this, I would like to recommend adding Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" to the Used Book Of The Month Club. Lanza's theorizing will be remembered less than Penrose's after a like amount of time because at least Penrose padded his book with lots of material irrelevant to the supposed subject at hand, but the very engaging collection of his other lines of intellectual exploration.

Theory of every-living-thing

Edward Murphy, Colma, CA — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:39:17 GMT

The theory of the "dead" universe arises from the idea of momentum. If we intend to say all momentum was imparted at the moment of the Big Bang, and all the rest is just billiards banging around, we are with the rock-hard dead universe. Life is just some more banging around. Consciousness is some pretty impressive banging around. Until recently, we humans reverved actual consciousness, along with real feelings, care, sadness, happiness, etc. to ourselves. Attribution of "human-like" feelings to animals was a scientific crime. This is no longer the case. In fact, where we have ever assigned ourselves a special place in the universe, the discovery we were not so special, now refered to as "growing up", has liberated us to be more than we had previously been. Perhaps, if we stop congratulating ourselves on our own importance, we will be liberated enough to see the other consciousness around us. Perhaps consciousness is more prevalent than we imagine. Isn't it even possible that a universe which could make life so abundantly here, has allowed it elsewhere. How about everywhere? And, how long has this been going on? Is it possible we have more to learn, if we give ourselves time?

Theory of every-living-thing

Kenetics, NJ — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:46:07 GMT

I'd give it a solid 9! My insight is that the more I try to understand my existence through science, the more facinated and confused I become, and the more absurd it all seems to be...But that gives me comfort

Theory of every-living-thing

Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:01:27 GMT

Science is incapable, by itself, of undertanding consciousness. That's a far cry from dismissing it as a way to move positivly toward a knowledge of it. My problem with Mr. Lanza is that he appears closed-off from this approach. Many on this, to me, exhilarating thread, believe we have a higher consciousness and I'm sure are saddened to learn that others do not share that. However I do not think this will prevent them continuing to look for a greater discernment, in every venue.

Theory of every-living-thing

Guy Adams, Union Grove, AL — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:28:34 GMT

Seems I have found someone who is in same line of thinking as myself...To Mr Lanza's point...ever wonder why time seem to accelerate as we get older? It is our perception. 1 year to a 6 year old is 1/6 his life. The comparable time frame to a 60 year old is 10 years. I have made many other similar observations that match Mr Lanza's theory. Have you ever heard the phrase "I reject your reality and insert my own"? In this case I accept your reality....

Theory of every-living-thing

Randy Hahn, Wausau, Wisconsin — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:21:26 GMT

But this is what they do on their own without any external signals.

This is where creationism comes to play.

Theory of every-living-thing

Sat, 17 Mar 2007 10:39:15 GMT

"Walk around me, go ahead, walk around me, clear around..."

Theory of every-living-thing

rick freeman, louisville, ky — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:53:44 GMT

Interesting to note stem cells generate neurons 'on their own', a factoid that'll be sopped up like gravey with a fried biscuit by the creationist types who rail against stem cell research. Also the bit about laws conspiring to create 'the observer'--that would be us I presume? I guess I'm just too dumb to perceive how this relates to a TOE. I don't think our species will ever understand that. The evolutionary merry-go-round will have to twirl several more times before some future species will grab the brass ring and have that 'eureka!' moment.

Theory of every-living-thing

G Hattiesburg, MS — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:46:41 GMT

We discussed the tree and the sound thing in philosophy class not science class as I remember. There is science here with a twist of philosophy, but it prsents as pure science, or at least that is my reality. Lanza is way beyond my comprehension. But, a few thoughts- Thomas says the rabbit tracks are there though no one saw the rabbit-and in my invisible kitchen my invisible stove cooks my invisible chicken-as someone else opined here-the energy we perceive is there perceived or not-yes- we perceive our reality but our reality is not the only reality-the true reality exists outside our perception-flowers grow and forests burn and no one saw it happen-why doesn't Lanza comment on this-but very interesting-

Theory of every-living-thing

spell check, My Solar System — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:38:13 GMT

science; government; god; religion: spirit; matter inorder > ^ life is made of matter! E=M times a constant (squared), light traveling through nothing called "space" over a interval named "Time" by living people. It seems stupid to me to be taught imaginary things like line, point, plane, and more are only "real" to people, life already had the answer, there is alot more... So how is life going to define matter as non-living when life is made of matter|| With-in matter is life. We exist. Stepping along to quantum. To measure is to see at a constant like the speed of light or absolute tempature; cool stuff to figure out. The box I am in is very small, like a quantum. But I see the box and enjoy being in it even if its a crappy hand dealt on this planet (like anything borne had a choice): LIFE can take alot and still KNOW more, why. String theroy. When all big things are made of small, with nothing in between. Like love and emotion.

Theory of every-living-thing

liz, rochester,new york — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:38:15 GMT

this website is VERY confusing!

Theory of every-living-thing

Na'yan H. - Jonesborough, TN — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:14:59 GMT

I just finished reading a biography of WIlliam James by Robert D. Richardson (Excellent!) and WJ apparently was one of the first ones to state that Reality is not a "thing" but a Process. I find that fascinating. Also fits in with Buddhist philosophy.

Theory of every-living-thing

Alex Pezon — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:05:53 GMT

Well, None of this is new. Read John Dewey. Read Charles Sansders Pierce. Reality is nothing more than what we agree something is. That is, things have no status, but for the fact that we give them a status. Take a way the sentient being and you are left with no data at all- hence nothingness. The true unified theory is what WE will determine. Take us away and there is nothing- literally.

Theory of every-living-thing

Some dude — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:31:22 GMT

I was thinking about this earlier... Not the first time either, but earlier was even clumsier.

Ever notice how properties of universals, like electricity for example, inherently guide the human discoverer? Here's the tangible reflection that made me pontificate on this.

Couple years ago I lived in a house, with like, I don't know 15 other young adults. We shared the rent...

It caught fire and burned (bad enough) while we slept. Everybody gets out, more or less intact, so no sad violins, please. But the apparent cause was a bad electrical outlet. This is the SAME outlet I had felt compelled to point out to the landlord on our walkthrough, during lease agreements. It was one of those 'not professionally mounted and face plated' ones, right? He goes 'yeah, yeah' and we move on...

Year later (I feel guilty about this.) I've taken the outlet for granted, and one o' the roomies plugs up about 15 different appliances to it. One of which is an old school turn-table.

This thing trips us out cause, every once in a while, it starts turning all by itself, even with the power switched off... (Ghost story, anyone?) Then the fire happens.

I go on to learn a few things about things, and ghost stories aside, the damn turntable was trying to warn us, in 'it's way'. About 'Thermal kinetic inductance' see?

The outlet WAS bad. Badly grounded in particular. And the inductance was also causing the whole wall to slowly overheat, as well as make small electrical motors turn without application of direct current. Finally it lights up, and burns at 4:00AM. While I'm naked in bed, of course.

My point is, lesson learned. And taught from a source that teaches firmly, and with authority. And makes me ponder the intelligence behind the grand design. If only we'd observed and understood the subtler signs ahead of time.

But when you go off and say things like 'The observer creates the observation' I say, ONLY if the observer is proud. If the observer could see from beyond the self, there would be no need for such self importance in the equation.

The reality is the 'universe' can only afford a simple being so much information to show them what the rest of it all looks like to them, from the perspective of their own tiny place in it (defined by the quality of the senses). Then it must move on.

So many other bigger and important things to do, you understand.

The observer doesn't make the rules. The rules make the observer. Being made of the rules, the rules are imbued to and within the observer, as well as the observed. And so, it follows that one can hardly perceive the difference, when both are viewed with enough accuracy.

Theory of every-living-thing

Peter Wakefield Sault — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 20:34:46 GMT

{quote}
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.
{unquote}

1. How does one distinguish one electron from another?

2. How does one record the position of a particular electron at a given moment? And what is the frame of reference? Having identified where Fred ('our' electron) was at time t can we later locate Fred and say categorically that it really is the same Fred who was at such and such a location at such and such a time and not an impostor? In other words, if one does not know Fred's whereabouts on a continuous basis how can one possibly know Fred's instantaneous whereabouts?

3. Having selected and tagged an electron, how does one record its momentum at a given moment? Ditto everything about position??????

In other words, how does *either* measurement get made? Only when the above questions have been answered satisfactorily can the question - whether position and direction can be 'observed' *simultaneously* or not - acquire any meaning.

What I am trying to find out is whether the 'uncertainty' of the electron is an observable, and therefore genuinely scientific, principle or is simply more mathematical gobbledegook masquerading as science in the same way that 'Big Bang' does.

Furthermore I would like to know what anyone thinks he or she is talking about when he or she uses the words "at the same time".

Theory of every-living-thing

Sudhir Baburao Pednekar — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:07:52 GMT

The theory of living things ( except humans') is
much more complecated than these theories and theses.
When all the dimensions are having mispropertional
scales,like anxiety,insecurity,etc.Humans are much more biological than physical things with emotions and aspirations.No string theory can define the strings of forces bywhich humans are stretched out of propertions by man made discomfort , trivia for living and disallowing to let live. Forces beyond nature and so called GOD (as a concept) to ignore worries of others, are thoses concepts which help me and you to close our eyes while doing injustice.
Atlast but not the least its good to see that there are those who come out of their cocoon and try to think about worries and pain of others in psuedo scientific manner to accept their own discomfort to solve problems of reality. I salute such people for their efforts because I couldn't.I am helpless.

Theory of every-living-thing

new york qweens — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:03:17 GMT

how do u know when were not gonna live forever

Theory of every-living-thing

Sudhir Baburao Pednekar, VJTI,Wadala,Mumbai,Maharashtra — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:42:13 GMT

Have you ever felt that you were just there and
you could feel it or get it ? Isn't it that a death of mind ?
But you are still alive to face the consequences.
Have you experienced the void created in youselves
and you are hollow within ?
When happy days are calling and galloped so fast that they swept away your existance and you perish
each drop of time gone by. Is your spirit calling
some loved one, minute by minute and you just want to stare at frames of past with fresh memories of you and her and console your mind that you see her
very soon ? And that's gonna live forever ,thinking that that will not gonna live forever.

Theory of every-living-thing

rapidshare search — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:18:02 GMT

I mean the truth as whole is what we perceive and what we don’t. Even if Mr. Lanza thinks that the theory of everything is the truth of everything, he still at least discovering a drop of that truth, if not an ocean of it.

Theory of every-living-thing

flyndmc — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:31:27 GMT

..........and now boys and girls chant the mantra alone with me un yelli man un yelliman un yelli man...

Now you will hear other voices in the universe chanting the great mantra of un yelli man and then once joined into the great cosmic void of un yelli man we shall all be the force of causuality in the great void, chanting forever the mantra of un yelli man....

Theory of every-living-thing

Thomas Bline, new Albany, IN — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:45:49 GMT

I think the quite long term physic equations arguing between 10 and 11 dimensions is fact, although we cannot prove it physically in a laboratory. This also might shed some light on Dark matter and Dark energy. It's all in the perception. The same way some animals have a wider visual spectrum than humans explains all our brain structure is different. If you ever took a college embryology course this would make sense. It also ties science and religion together in a nice little bow. Due to Quantum Mechanics, the strange unknown actions, Dark matter, etc. explain that if God was the creator, fine. But, who, or what is God? Likely a being so advanced we cannot even perceive God's appearance, thus the old, "Only when you enter the Kingdom of Heaven past the veil may you look upon His face". Well, if He is some kind of super advanced form of energy that might even explain the UFO issue. He uses other races to visit and mostly covertly observe out progress. Again, it is the fact our yet to be evolved minds just simply cannot comprehend the secrets of Universe. We will never understand in this lifetime. If we ever do it will be after we have evolved to the point we either don't need a physical body or darned close. There are more levels of this evolution throughout the universe it's as if levels of intelligence and evolution is equivalent to the different elements on the periodic table and their levels/shells of electrons, etc. I can't wait to see a good PhD dissertation on this.
madthom

Theory of every-living-thing

jim westcott, Rochester, NY. — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:26:47 GMT

Organic existance is recorded to occur on this planet some 3.5 billion years ago. This existance was single celled bacteria. It's theorized and there has been some experiments around these theories that organic material was formed from elements in the right mixture under the right atmospheric circumstances, etc. Humans don't really know if this is the case or not. I begin to doubt that conciousness of organic material, such as ourselves are creating our universe or reality. In the beginning of organic material on this Earth, there couldn't have been conciousness that drove these living materials to create a reality that is suitable for them. How could there have been a bio-loop between biology and natural laws where biology dictates the laws so that they are precise conditions for its survival when biology had no means of creating a reality or observing a reality. The reality must have come first and the biology reacted to the reality so that it continued to survive and grow in complexity.
Isn't Lanza saying here that we are all mini-gods, if we are the ones controlling the universe or creating the universe. It's just hard to wrap my brain around this notion.

Theory of every-living-thing

Steven Skrok, Springfield,Ma — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:44:03 GMT

some observations and questions
1-according to string theory all matter is made up of tiny vibrating strings
q- what makes them vibrate? are they vibrating in reaction to an outside force? or do they just vibrate for no reason.the analogies often used are musical instruments, but a string doesn`t vibrate unless it is plucked by the musician.or are superstrings analogous to the voice of God

2-according to string theory the possibility of extra dimensions outside our 3 space and 1 time are now absolutely necessary.at one time this was only science fiction and now they have to exist.

3-according to cell theory all life comes from life capable of reproducing itself. b-all the essential ingredients for life have formed by pure chance.
my bet is that you could take all the essential ingredients for life, put them in a test tube for a billion years, expose them to different amounts of electrical forces, heat them, cool them, change atmospheric conditions ect, and you still would not create life!
4 since string theory allows for extra dimensions, could life itself be another dimension or be from another dimension, which can permeate the membrane of our 3 dimensional state, thus animating particular molecules that are suitable for life?
or at least, is life a certain frequency of string vibration?
5-consciousness- is it also from another dimension or are all our thoughts merely nerve endings reacting to electrons moving around inside the brain of a bewildered ape?