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
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.