Science and Religion

[haereticum135]

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion. Sadly, the two have clashed, time and time again. However, perhaps we've been looking at it all wrong. Perhaps life, as we know it, conceived the universe in which it could thrive. Most people who argue for creationism use the argument that the odds of finding conditions like those of Earth are incredibly low. However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life? This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion.

What has science got to do with belief?

However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life?

Then how did life shape those laws before it appeared?

This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.

By "theory" you mean "wild, unsupported speculation".
What observations and evidence are there to support this contention?

 

[Neverfly]

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion. Sadly, the two have clashed, time and time again. However, perhaps we've been looking at it all wrong. Perhaps life, as we know it, conceived the universe in which it could thrive. Most people who argue for creationism use the argument that the odds of finding conditions like those of Earth are incredibly low. However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life? This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.

None of what you said made any sense at all.

The odds of finding Earthlike conditions are not really low so much as that life adapted to Earth like conditions. Kinda a no-brainer, that one.

Either way, your speculation assumes that consciousness retroactively created the physical laws before the physical laws were known and yet still apparent... in spite of early human consciousness attributing observed physical laws to superstition.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Throughout the history of mankind, the two greatest guides for personal beliefs have always been science and religion. Sadly, the two have clashed, time and time again. However, perhaps we've been looking at it all wrong. Perhaps life, as we know it, conceived the universe in which it could thrive. Most people who argue for creationism use the argument that the odds of finding conditions like those of Earth are incredibly low. However, is it possible that we may have, in fact, a world that wasn't shaped by physical laws, but physical laws shaped by life? This new theory I pose to you is Biocentrism. A universe in which life conceived the perfect scenario for it to live, evolve and reproduce.

This is the most pseudo-scientific nonsense I have ever heard in a while? Life perceiving the universe? :roflmao:, and :bravo: on being a huge idiot.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

As Dyw said, this is baseless speculation. How will it ever be observed? How will it ever be tested? How will it ever be refuted? A quick question: How did life arise with no time, matter, or space? By your logic, which is rather terrible, it would be fair to say that the universe arose from pre-existing life?

So, my question to you: How did life arise?

 

[haereticum135]

I'll try to answer as many questions as I can, here.
As for the "spontaneous generation" issues:
Theories typically don't try to answer all questions; they just offer explanations or scenarios for observed phenomena. This theory doesn't take a firm position on "where" the first organism came from, similar to how Big Bang cosmology doesn't take a firm position on "where" the Universe came from.
The chances of life may be better than zero, however, There is presently zero evidence of extra-biological life in the Universe. This is difficult to explain, as expressed by the Fermi paradox.
It's an extension of John Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle. He argued that the outcomes of experiments like delayed choice and quantum eraser could be explained if we give the observer an active, participatory role rather than a passive role. Otherwise, the anthropic principle by itself calls for either (1) incredibly good fortune, (2) multiple universes, or (3) multiple but very different regions of one universe. This theory is an alternative to those options.

 

[haereticum135]

I know what you are saying. But many (including myself) believe that this explanation has a better chance of being tested than, say, many worlds. The biocentric theory proposes that living organisms can appear to physically affect our own universe, which might be demonstrable if the right experiment is set up. We're a long way from demonstrating anything having to do with other universes.

 

[haereticum135]

Life is a series of biochemical reactions *as observed by a highly evolved life form*, we humans. The claim is that the observed state of the Universe evolves in parallel with organisms' ability to sense their surroundings. It might be valid to ask, why is the physical Universe necessary? Perhaps it isn't -- it may be a by-product of organisms reproducing and evolving, and human consciousness is like a very clear mirror that allows us to see it all. Just a thought.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Hmm. My simple and effective way of proving that biocentrism is creationism:
1. Biocentrism states that it is organic life which makes the universe. It states that the universe could not have existed before life.
2. Life arose between 3700 and 3500 million years ago, which is what all the evidence currently points to.
3. Abiogenesis would have to be ruled out as an explanation, since no matter, space or time existed for the gradual process of abiogenesis to take place, following the rule that life makes the universe, not the other way around.
4. Therefore, life would have had to pop out of nothing, based on (3). This defies the law of biogenesis, which states that it is impossible for spontaneous generation to take place.
5. Since the theory depends on spontaneous generation of life, and since life makes the universe, it follows that the universe would have to be spontaneously created 3700 million years ago from nothing, since life would have to do so first.
6. This exactly matches with what a form of creationism would posit.
7. Since biocentrism would essentially state the same things that creationism states, it is essentially a form of creationism. QED.

 

[Doreen]

The odds of finding Earthlike conditions are not really low so much as that life adapted to Earth like conditions. Kinda a no-brainer, that one.

It's not a no brainer. there are a good number of physicists who find the conditions odd. And the issue is not simply whether DNA based life could form, but any life at all would have been inconceivable if just a few fine differences were there in certain constants. You and I can go back and forth on this, but I assure that there are a good number of scientists who are bothered by this. A number of them consider the conditions such that it points to a multiverse.

 

[haereticum135]

No, this theory says nothing about life being intelligent or doing anything with intention, design, or purpose. If you roll a pair of dice and the roll comes up as two sixes, that result was not because of an intelligent decision. You are merely looking at the dice and seeing whatever it is you're seeing. The theory suggests that this is how the entire universe comes about.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

No, this theory says nothing about life being intelligent or doing anything with intention, design, or purpose. If you roll a pair of dice and the roll comes up as two sixes, that result was not because of an intelligent decision. You are merely looking at the dice and seeing whatever it is you're seeing. The theory suggests that this is how the entire universe comes about.

No one said anything about Intelligent Design. That movement and everything related to it was killed four and a half years ago. You made nothing more than a straw-man argument. You still failed to answer the question:

How would this be tested?
How would it ever be observed?
How would it be falsifiable?

Your theory is simply special pleading + arguing from ignorance.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Just because physicists don't understand something, does not make it a pretext to throw in a completely untestable hypothesis whose claims are grounded in what can only be considered pure fiction.

 

[haereticum135]

Well, you know what they say about something being "just a theory". Besides, many theories of the creation of our universe are entirely untestable. The Big Bang, Creationism, etc. The fact of the matter is, people believe such theories, anyway. I'm not asking you to change your world view, I just ask you to consider. It is for this very reason I present this theory to you. This theory challenges the assumption that physical features of the world can exist in a defined form without having been biologically observed at any time. This perspective is difficult to argue for, but it cannot be dismissed simply on the basis that it doesn't "seem" to be true. One thousand years ago, the round-Earth hypothesis could have been equally dismissed on the same basis. We need new experiments to focus specifically on this question.

 

[Neverfly]

It's not a no brainer. there are a good number of physicists who find the conditions odd. And the issue is not simply whether DNA based life could form, but any life at all would have been inconceivable if just a few fine differences were there in certain constants. You and I can go back and forth on this, but I assure that there are a good number of scientists who are bothered by this.

Then by all means: Point them out with citations.

 

[Neverfly]

Well, you know what they say about something being "just a theory".

I know that only creationists say that.

Besides, many theories of the creation of our universe are entirely untestable. The Big Bang, Creationism, etc.

False.
COBE
WMAP

The fact of the matter is, people believe such theories, anyway.

Not necessarily. You are equating Belief with observation and acceptance of evidence. They are not equal.

This theory challenges the assumption that physical features of the world can exist in a defined form without having been biologically observed at any time.

No, it doesn't. You have put forth Zero evidence that challenges anything.

This perspective is difficult to argue for, but it cannot be dismissed simply on the basis that it doesn't "seem" to be true.

It isn't.
It's being dismissed on the grounds that it contradicts just about ALL observable evidence.

One thousand years ago, the round-Earth hypothesis could have been equally dismissed on the same basis. We need new experiments to focus specifically on this question.

No, it wasn't.

1,000 years ago, they knew the Earth was round. The ancient egyptians calculated the circumference of the Earth over 4,000 years ago.

 

[haereticum135]

NO evidence? I suggest you scroll up, past the quote you cited.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Neverfly, he ignores that radiometric data returns the age of the earth at a minimum of 4500 to 4570 million years old. I cannot see how he could possibly describe how radiometric dating (11 or 12 methods) are all off by 19.04 percent. Any scientific theory that overturns another has to account for how/why the other seemingly worked so well.

 

[Neverfly]

NO evidence? I suggest you scroll up, past the quote you cited.

I have and I see no evidence up there.

All I see is speculation.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly, he ignores that radiometric data returns the age of the earth at a minimum of 4500 to 4570 million years old. I cannot see how he could possibly describe how radiometric dating (11 or 12 methods) are all off by 19.04 percent. Any scientific theory that overturns another has to account for how/why the other seemingly worked so well.

Well, he wouldn't be speculating uneducated about his belief properly if he paid attention to evidence, now would he?