Biocentrism - A Theory

[_Res Ipsa]

I get where you are coming from on this, but it strikes at the heart of what physics has struggled with for years. "What caused the Big Bang?"

There is common consensus that for every particle of matter, there is its twin of anti-matter. Many speculate that there is an universe of anti-matter out there somewhere with our name written on it, that it will collide with us and we will be destroyed. But, bottom line, the universe is sum-zero. For everything that is, there is something that isn't.

But, if you "add things together" to get nothing, what divided the nothing in the first place? Physics hasn't been able to explain this. There is another thing that physics says is true, but really cannot explain, and that is parallel realities. How could universes be created as fast as possibilities? Where does all that matter and energy come from? The only thing that explains it, to my thinking, is that there is still nothing, that we only think we are here, and that parallel realities are created in the minds of those in them. How can there be infinite universes if matter is finite?

I don't think that "I" (this observer) creates particles. I think that particles can exist in multiple universes, but that a "higher observer" does the creating. But, that is one paradox that I don't think anyone here can explain. Where does matter/antimatter come from and who makes it? Because as the numbers go, it's nothing, should still be nothing.

There is nothing that entitles us to know the answer to every question today or ever. If there is insufficient evidence to answer a question, the answer is not to make things up. The answer is to admit that we don't know and keep looking for evidence. "The only thing I can think of" is a terrible way to investigate the answers to your questions. Seriously, why do you assume you have enough information to answer the question? Or, why do you think the universe owes you answers to your questions? Maybe read Job's talk with God again?

Look at it this way. You are responding to unanswered questions by making up a "higher observer" who creates things. And for some reason you are happy with that even though you can't answer any questions about this being. So why can you tolerate not knowing anything about this higher observer but not questions about matter and anti-matter? Making up this "higher observer" doesn't answer a single one of your questions. So why is "higher observer" a satisfactory answer?

[_SPG]

RPG,

Thanks for helping me understand your initials better. I have a question. You say the world ends with memory vs. ending with opening and closing our eyes or otherwise observing it with out pseudo-senses. Suppose I believe the world ends when I close my eyes, what argument would you make to convince me that it really ends with memory instead? What would make me, as a biocentricist, update my views with your suggestion?

That's SPG (Self Proclaimed Greatness) to you.

A couple of things you miss and probably not mentioned in the Biocentrism Canon is the effect of other observers. If two people are in a room and one leaves, would the room decrease by half? Do you hold presence of house planet or does it hold its own?

I personally think that even though the Biocentrism concept is true that everything stays because there are always observers. What is there was a spider in the room? Do it pause just because I left?

I think some of biblical language implies the need for witnesses and testators. The Watchers are mentioned.

The split photon experiments are getting more interesting. The detector stays on, but the scatter pattern of the photon tightens up when "people" watching. They have proven that someone watching over the internet from California can affect a test in New Jersey. They tested groups watching, or lay people or mediation Masters. Though slight, there are patterns to the quality of Observer.

The cat issue I happen to agree with you. It is an observer in its own right. If it seems its as alive, it would take physical act to kill it. I never quite understood that philosophy. I understand the concepts of possibilities and probabilities, but they would not mysteriously kill the cat. There is a possibility of poisonous insect was in the box, but that isn't quite what they meant.

[_SPG]

Look at it this way. You are responding to unanswered questions by making up a "higher observer" who creates things. And for some reason you are happy with that even though you can't answer any questions about this being. So why can you tolerate not knowing anything about this higher observer but not questions about matter and anti-matter? Making up this "higher observer" doesn't answer a single one of your questions. So why is "higher observer" a satisfactory answer?

I DID NOT make up the higher observer. That thing has been poking its nose in our business for thousands of years. The universe doesn't owe me anything, but what if it's willing to provide answers for a little bit of humble effort? What you are impling is evidence is costing humans billions of dollars and I personally think they are blind to the existing evidence. And that evidence is that higher observers have been talking to humans for thousands of years.

[_Res Ipsa]

Look at it this way. You are responding to unanswered questions by making up a "higher observer" who creates things. And for some reason you are happy with that even though you can't answer any questions about this being. So why can you tolerate not knowing anything about this higher observer but not questions about matter and anti-matter? Making up this "higher observer" doesn't answer a single one of your questions. So why is "higher observer" a satisfactory answer?

I DID NOT make up the higher observer. That thing has been poking its nose in our business for thousands of years. The universe doesn't owe me anything, but what if it's willing to provide answers for a little bit of humble effort? What you are impling is evidence is costing humans billions of dollars and I personally think they are blind to the existing evidence. And that evidence is that higher observers have been talking to humans for thousands of years.

What thing? You’ve taken disparate accounts that differ wildly in content and concluded that it forms a pattern that must mean something. And that something is what you’ve labeled a “higher observer.” That it resembles other beings made up by others doesn’t mean that your brain didn’t make yours up.

It’s not that people are blind to your evidence. It’s that the plural of anecdote is not data.

[_Res Ipsa]

RPG,

That's SPG (Self Proclaimed Greatness) to you.

A couple of things you miss and probably not mentioned in the Biocentrism Canon is the effect of other observers. If two people are in a room and one leaves, would the room decrease by half? Do you hold presence of house planet or does it hold its own?

I personally think that even though the Biocentrism concept is true that everything stays because there are always observers. What is there was a spider in the room? Do it pause just because I left?

I think some of biblical language implies the need for witnesses and testators. The Watchers are mentioned.

The split photon experiments are getting more interesting. The detector stays on, but the scatter pattern of the photon tightens up when "people" watching. They have proven that someone watching over the internet from California can affect a test in New Jersey. They tested groups watching, or lay people or mediation Masters. Though slight, there are patterns to the quality of Observer.

The cat issue I happen to agree with you. It is an observer in its own right. If it seems its as alive, it would take physical act to kill it. I never quite understood that philosophy. I understand the concepts of possibilities and probabilities, but they would not mysteriously kill the cat. There is a possibility of poisonous insect was in the box, but that isn't quite what they meant.

Okay, so the universe maintains a constant existence because it is watched by these higher observers. But do these observers just put their hands over theirs when anyone, anywhere performs the two-slit experiment? Because if they are “observing” the universe, the result should never be an interference pattern, regardless of whether the detector goes on. So, are you going to rethink the existence of these next level of observers or are you going to invent some attribute of these Observers to explain why it just so happens that they never observe a two-slit experiment?

You are seriously confused about the meaning of “observation” in the two-slit experiment. And have you a link to this “proof” that changing the people present during a two-slit experiment “tightens” the beam?

[_SPG]

What thing? You’ve taken disparate accounts that differ wildly in content and concluded that it forms a pattern that must mean something. And that something is what you’ve labeled a “higher observer.” That it resembles other beings made up by others doesn’t mean that your brain didn’t make yours up.

It’s not that people are blind to your evidence. It’s that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Biocentrism implies that I do make up and it's ok to share it. I'm use the "disparate accounts" to show that these ideas touch a wide range of things. I'm not trying to sell a product from a specific vendor. I'm telling to see the idea that something things we might have less control about, but more control on other things.

I'm never going to ask for donations or tithing if that is what you worried about.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, which is it? Are you making things up or not making things up? The answer seems to change from post to post.

And are you going to even try to address the fact that the double-slit experiment on which you purport to rely is actually evidence against the existence of your higher observers?

Nonsense is nonsense, regardless of whether you make a buck off it.

[_Gadianton]

But do these observers just put their hands over theirs when anyone, anywhere performs the two-slit experiment? Because if they are “observing” the universe, the result should never be an interference pattern, regardless of whether the detector goes on.

thank you Res Ipsa. I do wonder if the great observer is constructing us and the experiment or whether we are intersubjectively constructing the experiment. I assumed the latter, but you might be right because he does believe in God and where would God fit in?

That's SPG

my bad, even I miss by a mile sometimes.

The detector stays on, but the scatter pattern of the photon tightens up when "people" watching

major CFR. Where do you get this? Either way: if the interference goes from 75% to 82% when people are watching, then how do you explain the first 75% without any "observation" whatsoever?

FYI:

we can't actually observe subatomic particles going through slits. Our eyes just aren't keen enough.

[_honorentheos]

The original article in The American Scholar took on the question of solipsism as a criticism of biocentrism but it also explains their view on observers. The argument he apparently makes is that given space is an illusion, our separation into individual beings is also an illusion that hides the greater truth all are part of some greater consciousness. I assume it plays on Taoism and the idea of the many thousand things being an illusion or whatever.

Not that it matters, but for SPG, that is the orthodox argument for biocentrists defending the question about observers. Not as sexy as mystic Watchers or a Council of Gods or whathaveyou. It's probably because they come at it from more of an Eastern perspective. Either way, it's non-scientific by definition. If it isn't, what hypothesis with experiment and standard for falsification would you propose to demonstrate it should be considered scientific?

[_honorentheos]

by the way, to the mods - I take this being moved out of the Terrestrial forum and into Spirit Prison as a sign that Mormonism is officially meaningless to me as an individual. These were the only threads on the Mormon forums that I had any interest in and, since it's apparent they are not sufficiently related to Mormonism to meet the board's standards, I guess by extension Mormonism is of no interest to me any longer, either. I'll have to think about what that means.