Biocentrism seems to be the new defacto woo preferred by otherwise intelligent people.
Because the term ”observer” is used when talking about the two slot experiment that started quantum physics people assume that consciousness is involved.
Were that true then we would find more of what we expect in the universe, but we are shocked by the unexpected everywhere we look.
Do not be taken in, it is just us perpetually looking for a way to magically effect a universe that we can only modify by physical effort.
Welcome to the new superstition, do not be taken in by it.
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.To me, if biocentrism were true, it would point strongly toward simulation hypothesis. I mean, what better explanation for a universe in which otherwise unobtrusive observation would effect measurement outcome? The question of provability comes into play, but you know, small potatoes...
ghettophilosopher
Level 7
June 6, 2018
1
@Mortal But if we were in a simulation, observer dependent phenomena would make perfect sense. For the purposes of speed and efficiency, a computer wouldn't render anything unnecessarily (ie unobserved) nor with any more resolution than necessary.
Quantum mechanics are confusing enough, that most people will never understand it. It took me a long time to grasp even the basics, and even then I’m far from being knowledgable. It’s no surprise a lot of woo pedlers have hijacked it to push whatever nonsense they like.
Katrik
Level 7
June 6, 2018
1
Quantum Theory has always been proven correct.
jlynn37
Level 8
June 6, 2018
1
Sort of. Mechanics is not derived in a necessary progression so Quantum Theory is not a purely necessary body of knowledge, it's just effective. There is no proving a model in STEM, however it should be possible to derive wave path & irregular path mechanics to fix all that.
It is NOT rubbish. Do you know how much mechanics I have read? I read enough to get a 100 on a paper on mechanics, okay? I have read a lot of mechanics. This is my field, okay?
@Mortal
I don't know the other guys you're talking about, but I despise Deepak Chopra, because all he exists is to showboat his fake IQ score and his simpleton ideas. He likes to challenge people to explain consciousness for 10k USD, and when they give a good response, he just says "f%ck you" more or less, and doesn't pay anybody, to boot.
Additionally, Deepak is essentially a way to improve the appeal of conservative policymaking, which underpins probably one third of the systemic corruption in our country. He is stupid enough to be de-platformable. The right needs more people with actual high IQ's like Thomas Sowell, and less of these glorified talkboxes, like Deepak Chopra.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.