Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Will Biology Solve the Universe?
reavo
Member Posts: 2,173
Some really freaky stuff, indeed!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Biology Solve the Universe?
www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,72910-0.html
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.
Comments
If I read it right???
If I read it right???
{(RIP)} SWG
No, physics will. The String Theory to be exact.
===============================
One day we'll realize that we as living creatures can't preceive the universe as it is as we are unable to see the absolute objective truth (which exists btw).
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
One day we'll realize that we as living creatures can't preceive the universe as it is as we are unable to see the absolute objective truth (which exists btw).
That depends on your veiw of the the universe in whole.
Hell for all we know it truely is just a random chaotic smear of stuff that somehow got lucky and blarbed into what we have now.
"Maybe" it's all just dumb luck that formed the universe as it is now.
Perhaps if there is a universe 2,3,4,5 there may be a whole different variant.
Man kind is far too short sighted to even guess our own galaxy at the moment, let alone the full truth of what the universe is.
For all we know now, I can say that it's a box within a box within another box.
Science while it has provided neat little theories just opens more questions than before on our little plane of existance.
I'll go with my own feelings on this and say the world is flat,at the center of universe and that the celestial bodies circle us.
1246 FTW
One day we'll realize that we as living creatures can't preceive the universe as it is as we are unable to see the absolute objective truth (which exists btw).
That depends on your veiw of the the universe in whole.
Hell for all we know it truely is just a random chaotic smear of stuff that somehow got lucky and blarbed into what we have now.
"Maybe" it's all just dumb luck that formed the universe as it is now.
Perhaps if there is a universe 2,3,4,5 there may be a whole different variant.
Man kind is far too short sighted to even guess our own galaxy at the moment, let alone the full truth of what the universe is.
For all we know now, I can say that it's a box within a box within another box.
Science while it has provided neat little theories just opens more questions than before on our little plane of existance.
I'll go with my own feelings on this and say the world is flat,at the center of universe and that the celestial bodies circle MadAce.
1246 FTW
I corrected it.CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
Thats only if you are gullable enough to belive a fictionall historical book. That was re-writain many times and the origonal text was created by a roman emperor from a mixture of severall other fictional books. Which were in turn re-writtain many times and origonally dictated by stortellers to Paper, And the storys themselves were re-told and exaduated over a few hundred years and many generations.
You see thats my problem with THAT book its been re-writain so amny times and the source material was so ambiguous to begine with its frankly unbelivable as a book of fact.
It’s not a matter of gullibility; it’s a matter of common sense and simple rational deduction.
The Old Timers Guild
Laid back, not so serious, no drama.
All about the fun!
www.oldtimersguild.com
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it. - Jef Mallett
lol....scientists...haha.
They make me smile with their notions that we will completely understand the Universe with one unified theory in the next 20 years.
We as humans give ourselves FAR too much credit for our own percieved intelligence. He's not going to solve anything with this "biocentric" viewpoint, he's only going to raise more questions.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
One last thing, even the grand unification theory (GUT) will not make the universe completly deterministic.... I think you dont give scientists enough credit, they have already studied in great detail why they cant know everything, and have come up with upper limits for its application. See Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory
Theories theories and more theories. I grow tired of reading these scientific theories and memorizing them, only to read about something that disproves them a year later.
Scientists like this are searching for answers in places that they believe they will find them. I happen to believe that they are looking in the wrong places, and are therefore living their lives in vain. You can tell me about string theory and the 11(I think with string theory) space/time dimensions that will probably never be proven. You can tell me about any kind of GUT and I'll probably just laugh at you. There is no one theory that will ever come out of secular science that solves the origin of all life on Earth, or even the Universe in general.
What happened to science? I thought that it was supposed to be about finding answers. Not finding answers that fit a certain criteria of scientific validity. I think Richard Dawkins said it best. "Complex is just another word for unlikelely." Though at the time he was trying to prove that there is no God by claiming that a being would have to be incredibly complex to have God's power...showing his willful ignorance of the nature of God of course.
The answer is in front of the face of all people, it's a matter of whether or not they choose to accept it. It's a simple answer, but humans like to search for things that don't exist. They will continue to search for a Universe without God, and they will continue to stumble, they will continue to find evidence that conflicts. They will put eachother up on pedestols, they will worship Richard Dawkins, they will worship Ghould, Darwin and Hawking, for what? Their brilliance.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.'" 1 Corinthians 3:19-20
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
And how can you say "scientists" when you refer to ONE scientist stating that he believes the unified theory will be solved in the next 20 years. I hear you all the time defending religion by saying stuff along the lines that not all Christians think the same. How would you like it if I pegged all Christians as being like Fred Phelps? A lot of scientists disagree with Hawkin's prediction.
So, bring on the further questions!!! Don't fear the quest for understanding simply because it involves paths that may be dead ends or paths that end up longer than they seemed at first.
===============================
One last thing, even the grand unification theory (GUT) will not make the universe completly deterministic.... I think you dont give scientists enough credit, they have already studied in great detail why they cant know everything, and have come up with upper limits for its application. See Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory
Theories theories and more theories. I grow tired of reading these scientific theories and memorizing them, only to read about something that disproves them a year later.
Scientists like this are searching for answers in places that they believe they will find them. I happen to believe that they are looking in the wrong places, and are therefore living their lives in vain. You can tell me about string theory and the 11(I think with string theory) space/time dimensions that will probably never be proven. You can tell me about any kind of GUT and I'll probably just laugh at you. There is no one theory that will ever come out of secular science that solves the origin of all life on Earth, or even the Universe in general.
What happened to science? I thought that it was supposed to be about finding answers. Not finding answers that fit a certain criteria of scientific validity. I think Richard Dawkins said it best. "Complex is just another word for unlikelely." Though at the time he was trying to prove that there is no God by claiming that a being would have to be incredibly complex to have God's power...showing his willful ignorance of the nature of God of course.
The answer is in front of the face of all people, it's a matter of whether or not they choose to accept it. It's a simple answer, but humans like to search for things that don't exist. They will continue to search for a Universe without God, and they will continue to stumble, they will continue to find evidence that conflicts. They will put eachother up on pedestols, they will worship Richard Dawkins, they will worship Ghould, Darwin and Hawking, for what? Their brilliance.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'; and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.'" 1 Corinthians 3:19-20
Nobody is worshiping a scientist. Where do you get that from?I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you if you meant for your statements to come across as attacks. If not then please explain them to me. If they were attacks, then I can't help but interpret them to be insecurities.
I remember reading about when Einstein presented his "theories" about nuclear reactions and later built on them to explain the nuclear force and how to harness it. He was laughed at a lot too. But look at what his contributions to mankind have brought us. Just because one seeks knowledge and understanding, and puts out a theory to be analyzed and debated by his scientific counterparts, does not make him an unholy man or in contradiction to the creator. It's simply him trying to use the mind God gave him to understand what's going on. It's a drive to explore that is innate in some of us.
===============================
Errr i think you need to re-read my post again then read your reply.
I have to say the lack of common sence and rationality in your reply was trully staggering considering it was so short
if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around does it make a sound? thats all i got out of it...hehe
Gelasius
I don't understand why he's upset at the creationists, its a perfectally valid theory......for me i'd feel better knowing we were created than crap it just happened....really makes no sense to me they would rather be alone than to think that there's an all intelligent creator watching over everything keeping everything together....otherwise whats to keep the scientists heads from exploding that right there i believe is a miracle....lmao
Gelasius
And how can you say "scientists" when you refer to ONE scientist stating that he believes the unified theory will be solved in the next 20 years. I hear you all the time defending religion by saying stuff along the lines that not all Christians think the same. How would you like it if I pegged all Christians as being like Fred Phelps? A lot of scientists disagree with Hawkin's prediction.
So, bring on the further questions!!! Don't fear the quest for understanding simply because it involves paths that may be dead ends or paths that end up longer than they seemed at first.
Scientists can welcome those questions if they wish...It's not my problem. You missed the bigger picture Gnome. My issue is not that more questions will be raised, or how many scientists are in favor of this theory. In fact my second post had very little to do with this biological theory, and more to do with secular science in general. What I wrote is in response to how modern secular science goes about its business...instead of looking for the best answers, they look for answers that fit a specific criteria that they have decided for themselves. A theory has to test successfully under what conditions? Conditions decided by the scientists making the theories. It's a conflict of interest, and a conflict in progressive thought.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Does worship necessarily involve people going to church? No.
What about my statement comes off as an attack? That secular scientists put men like Richard Dawkins up on a pedestol, and look up to them as though someday THEY will be the ones to give them answers about our existance? If that is an attack, then yeah, okay. But I see it as an observation of how men like Dawkins and Darwin are viewed by atheists in general. They are revered, almost on a Godlike level. Any debate on these boards with atheists that I have had almost unexceptionally devolves into people quoting Dawkins, Ghould, or Sagan...just as I quote scripture. So what's the difference?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
And how can you say "scientists" when you refer to ONE scientist stating that he believes the unified theory will be solved in the next 20 years. I hear you all the time defending religion by saying stuff along the lines that not all Christians think the same. How would you like it if I pegged all Christians as being like Fred Phelps? A lot of scientists disagree with Hawkin's prediction.
So, bring on the further questions!!! Don't fear the quest for understanding simply because it involves paths that may be dead ends or paths that end up longer than they seemed at first.
Scientists can welcome those questions if they wish...It's not my problem. You missed the bigger picture Gnome. My issue is not that more questions will be raised, or how many scientists are in favor of this theory. In fact my second post had very little to do with this biological theory, and more to do with secular science in general. What I wrote is in response to how modern secular science goes about its business...instead of looking for the best answers, they look for answers that fit a specific criteria that they have decided for themselves. A theory has to test successfully under what conditions? Conditions decided by the scientists making the theories. It's a conflict of interest, and a conflict in progressive thought.
Isnt this precisely what creationionist do ?They use the data garnered by REAL scientists, and twist it to fit their own pre-concieved ideas of a God and a 6000yo universe ?
I mean, you do do it, theres no doubt, You have your book, and creationists, by definition, set out to prove it as fact.... without any use for the truth at all.
I do what is refered to as "viewing the Universe through Biblical glasses"
In a way, yes, it's the same thing that secular science does, using the evidence that exists to try and prove our own beliefs. I wouldn't say that creationists try to twist the evidence to support their own views, I would say that creationists look at the same evidence, and interpret it differently. And to a large degree, creationists are willing to consider much more of the evidence that exists against our own beliefs. When I say that secular science is looking for specific answers, I mean that they want to take God completely out of the equation, and it's just not going to work in the long run, plain and simple. Whether you want to believe in creationism or not is a separate issue from the belief in a general creator.
as a side note: Do you honestly think that I LIKE the fact that I can't just live my life in any way that I see fit? I would love it if I thought it was okay for me to go out, get wasted, have sex with random women, and then go home and watch porn. Sadly though, the evidence that I see for my beliefs is strong enough to give me the will to not do those things.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I also feel that Christians have been given a bad name by particular denominations and sects that want to boast about all that they have done in the name of God. It's sad how many Christians have fallen into the lifestyle in which they believe that works on Earth will save them. And I agree that things like astronomy and cosmology could very well be used to glorify what God has done, unfortunately secular science takes away that glory and replaces the word God with nature. Looking up to the sky does indeed make people marvel at the things that God has done, if they choose to see those things.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
No creationism is a horrible theory... its not actually a theory at all. It has no predictability at all. All it is, is just imperical readings twisted to arguee the basis of a pre-concieved notion.
so what your saying it has to be predictable in order to be a theory......interesting...even top evolutionists,physicists and scientists all agaree that creationism is as much a theory as the big bang, when it comes down to the nit an gritty neither side has hard evidence. So in all reality each basis would be considered a pre-concieved twisted notion based off of your standards.
I also feel that Christians have been given a bad name by particular denominations and sects that want to boast about all that they have done in the name of God. It's sad how many Christians have fallen into the lifestyle in which they believe that works on Earth will save them. And I agree that things like astronomy and cosmology could very well be used to glorify what God has done, unfortunately secular science takes away that glory and replaces the word God with nature. Looking up to the sky does indeed make people marvel at the things that God has done, if they choose to see those things.
If God does exist, wouldnt it be a very natural thing then, or even super-natural ?Why is God Unnatural, wouldnt he take offence to that ?
do you know him well enough to think he would take offence to that, maybe he doesn't maybe thats the way he wanted it. ever think of that?
Gelasius