I think Dr.  Lanza is one smart guy.  I never did believe "time" was real.
Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amanda Phillips" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: "Biocentric" theory of universe


> In a message dated 10/03/2007 07:03:48 GMT Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
> Will  Biology Solve the Universe?
> By Aaron Rowe| Also by this reporter
> 10:00  AM Mar, 08, 2007
> For years, scientists have tried to develop a universal  theory of
> everything. Steven Hawking predicts that such a theory will be  discovered
> in
> the next 20 years. A new theory asserts that biology, not  physics, will
> be
> the key to unlocking the deepest mysteries of the  universe, such as
> quantum
> mechanics.
> "The answer to the universe is  biology -- it's as simple as that," says
> Dr.
> Robert Lanza, vice president  of research and scientific development at
> Advanced Cell Technology. He  details his theory in The American Scholar's
> spring issue, published on  Thursday. Lanza says scientists will establish
> a
> unified theory only if  they radically rethink their understanding of
> space
> and time using a  "biocentric" approach. His article is essentially a
> biological and  philosophical response to Hawking's A Brief History of
> Time,
> in which he  questions how we interpret the big bang, the existence of
> space
> and time,  as well as many other theories -- assertions that might ruffle
> the
> feathers  of some physical scientists.
> But Lanza is used to controversy. The 2005  Wired Rave Award winner has
> seen
> plenty in response to his stem cell and  cloning work at Advanced Cell.
> And
> he's ready for the scientific row his  latest work is likely to engender.
> "The urgent and primary questions of the  universe have been undertaken by
> those physicists who are trying to explain  the origins of everything with
> grand unified theories," says Lanza in his  article. "But as exciting and
> glamorous 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."
> At  several points in his article, he argues that cosmologists are doing
> work
> that has been hijacked by creationists.
> "In cosmology, scientists  have discovered that the universe has a long
> list
> of traits that make it  appear as if everything it contains -- from atoms
> to
> stars -- was  tailor-made for us," he writes. "Indeed, the lack of a
> scientific  explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a
> defense
> of  intelligent design."
> Lanza argues that time is not the linear phenomena  that we are
> comfortable
> with. Rather, our perception of time is a tool we  use to understand the
> world around us. While it works well for the average  person, it hampers
> our
> understanding of advanced physics. In this Wired  News Q&A, Lanza explains
> more about the theory he calls his life's work  .
> Wired News: You call your theory of the universe a biocentric theory.
> What,
> exactly, does that mean?
> Lanza: This new theory presents a shift  in world view with the
> perspective
> that life creates the universe instead  of the other way around.
> WN: I imagine that a lot of physicists will be  rather upset by your
> article.
> How do you expect them to react?
> Lanza:  People are not going to be very happy with what this all means.
> This
> theory  is going to invalidate their (some scientists) entire life's work.
> I
> will  definitely get crucified.
> We've got the scientific structure and framework  incorrect. We need a
> theory
> that is internally consistent. We can't do this  without creating a
> biological understanding of space and time. This will  require
> restructuring
> science so that biology is above physics.
> WN: Does  that mean you think that big physics and astronomy projects
> should
> not be  funded?
> Lanza: Of course they should be funded. I don't think that  everything
> should
> be changed. What I am saying is that there is a missing  piece to the
> puzzle
> of how the universe works. The answer is biology. It is  as simple as
> that.
> The biological picture of space and time must be  integrated into our
> understanding of physics.
> WN: Why do you think that  there is such a deep misunderstanding of what
> time
> and space really  are?
> Lanza: Our minds are structured to think that way. Even Einstein  avoided
> the
> question of what space and time are. He simply defined them as  what we
> measure with clocks and measuring-rods. However, the emphasis  should be
> on
> the "we," not the measuring.
> WN: Do you expect that some  people will read your article and think you
> mean
> that they can sit on a  mountaintop and meditate to change the world
> around
> them with mind  powers?
> Lanza: We can't decide that we want to jump off the roof and not  get
> hurt.
> However much we want, we can't violate the rules of  spatiotemporal logic.
> WN: In your article, you make the assertion that time  and space do not
> exist. What do you mean by that?
> Lanza: There is  something very unusual about them. We can't put them in a
> marmalade jar and  take them back to the lab for analysis. Space and time
> are
> forms of animal  sense perception. Space and time are not objects or
> things -- they are  forms of animal sense perception.
> Thousands of articles and books have  danced around the desire to toss off
> the current mechanical world view that  has dominated Western culture for
> hundreds of years. While some imply that  time and space may not in fact
> exist, this article diagrams, for the first  time, such a universe -- a
> universe in which time and space do not exist as  physical realities
> independent of humans and animals.
> WN: You seem to  disagree with how the world was created.
> Lanza: There are serious problems  with the current world view. We pride
> ourselves in our current beliefs and  then we (scientists) say, and by the
> way, we have no idea why the big bang  happened.
> WN: Can you explain why we should doubt the things that are  accepted as
> the
> truth in science classes everywhere?
> Lanza: For the  first time outside of complex mathematics, this theory
> explains the  provocative new experiment that was just published in
> Science
> last month.  This landmark experiment showed that a choice you make now
> can
> actually  influence an event that has already occurred in the past.
> Scientists  continue to dismiss the observer as an inconvenience to their
> theories.  Real experiments show that the properties of matter itself  are
> observer-determined. A particle can go through one hole if you look at
> it,
> but if you don't look at it, it can actually go through more than one
> hole
> at the same time. Science has no explanation for how the world can be
> like
> that.
>
> *This is why light can be both and/or a wave and a  particle,  depending
> upon
> perception.  Ray,
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To  sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put:  signoff parkinsn
>
>
>
> If there's a theory of everything,does  that mean it's a theory of  itself
> ?
> - and there's a theory of a theory of a theory of a .... oh, never  mind !
>
> amanda
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn