Biocentrism - How life creates the universe

What I referred to is to the best of my knowledge - the standard version of the experiment.

The following is a link to an article to an article on John Wheeler's views. Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?This quote referes to Andrei Linde's views from this article.

quote:

---

Stanford University physicist Andrei Linde believes this quantum paradox gets to the heart of Wheeler's idea about the nature of the universe: The principles of quantum mechanics dictate severe limits on the certainty of our knowledge.

​

"You may ask whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it," he says. "That's the same Schrdinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week, you're going to find either a live cat or a smelly piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago."

​

Linde believes that Wheeler's intuition of the participatory nature of reality is probably right. But he differs with Wheeler on one crucial point. Linde believes that conscious "The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. These small words it looks like it was here for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead."

---

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Sorry I disagree. This is like saying the sun or the moon would not exist if humans were not around to observe it. Pure poppycock and unadulterated anthrocentrism IMHO.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

If your answer is "no", the next question is: Did the universe exist before we started looking at it?Our observations suggest that it did.

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

Does anyone even care?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I am not going to pretend that I am qualified to argue this point one way or another. I have read a couple of books on the subject and think they make a good point.I think that Linde among others is at least qualified to comment with some authority on this and to just call it poppycock doesn't do much to refute his point.I don't think that anyone has said that it requires a human observer. I think that my golden retreiver would qualify.

I'll just repeat what Linde said in the quote I used above.

quote:

---

"You may ask whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it," he says. "That's the same Schrdinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week, you're going to find either a live cat or a smelly piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago."

---

Some do. Science is supposed to go where the evidence leads and it seems that some scientists think that this is where they are being led.

This is the problem with philosophers, they take concepts far to the extreme and off into absurdity.Quantum uncertainty yields a probabilistic universe. Combining millions of probability curves still mimics the certainty of Classical Mechanics in the aggregate.By Linde's reasoning this universe could not be said to exist without a conscious observer to see it. But let me take this one logical step further, a step that Linde and others fail to take.This universe cannot be said to exist without my personal observance. I, AZPaul3, am the center of the universe. Actually, the bridge of my nose is the center since no matter which direction I look the measure of distance as far out as it is possible to see is exactly the same. From the philosopher's own handbook, I cannot say the universe existed before I, personally, was here to observe it. Further, then, this universe will end with my end of observation upon my passing.[aside]For the younger members here, it is most unfortunate that life is a terminal condition to begin with and given my position on its path your existence may be cut rather short, though I endeavor to delay this ultimate end as long as possible.[/aside]The absurdity of this is that we have Linde's recording device where the information of others' observations of the universe's existence prior to my consciousness is preserved (all omphalism aside).It appears, then, that my personal observation of the universe is not a necessary condition for its existence. By extension, this universe exists independent of my consciousness, or the consciousness of Linde or Wheeler or anyone else.I submit that there is in fact a "recording device" where the information of the existence of the past universe is stored. It is in the shape, content and state of the present universe, all recorded by the physical laws from its past states. It requires a conscious intelligence to decipher and understand the record but it is there regardless of the existence of any specific, or all, consciousness.The record exists independent of any intelligence advanced yet enough to decipher its code. The universe exists independent of any consciousness present to observe it.

You are correct in saying no one can refute this point. Neither can one confirm it. It is purely philosophical idea and has no emperical evidence supporting it or opposing it.Thus I will qualify my statement by saying scientifically it is poppycock as there is no way to prove or disprove it. Just like you cannot prove that a chine teapot does not orbit the sun halfway between the Earth and Mars.Does that make you happy Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Science is one thing. Philosophy is another. Whether the universe exists when no one is looking is Philosophy, not science.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

I think that Linde among others is at least qualified to comment with some authority on this and to just call it poppycock doesn't do much to refute his point.

---

I don't agree that Lind has any special authority. Given the fact that there are no experiments that show that consciousness is required at all, it seems that all he offers is philosophical musings without real evidence. What, then, qualifies his opinion as authoritative to any significant degree ?

Is he qualified to "comment with some authority" by his lack of imagination?

I don't know if it's Linde misunderstanding Schrdinger or Schrdinger misunderstanding CSI but the fact is that we can determine an approximate time of death from present-day observations.It's one thing to say that an observer effects the observation - e.g. inserting a thermometer changes the temperature of both the thermometer and the sample. It's another thing entirely to say that the quantities don't exist until measured.

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

Well, this is the heart of understanding quantum mechanics. Position and momentum as such don't exist until measured - they simply aren't "things" that "exist" - they are answers to questions that are asked. This is the basics. Extrapolating that to life and death is another thing, I agree... possibly.Oh, and great to see you backEdited by cavediver, : No reason given.