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