Why Are You Here? A New Theory?

[Xangsamhua]

Why are you here? A New Theory May Hold the Missing Piece.

Huffington Post, 12 November 2010.

Why do you happen to be alive on this lush little planet with its warm sun and coconut trees? And at just the right time in the history of the universe? The surface of the molten earth has cooled, but it's not too cold. And it's not too hot; the sun hasn't expanded enough to melt the Earth's surface with its searing gas yet. Even setting aside the issue of being here and now, the probability of random physical laws and events leading to this point is less than 1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, equivalent to winning every lottery there ever was.

Biocentrism, a new theory of everything, provides the missing piece. Although classical evolution does an excellent job of helping us understand the past, it fails to capture the driving force. Evolution needs to add the observer to the equation. Indeed, Niels Bohr, the great Nobel physicist, said, "When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not 'measuring' the world, we are creating it." The evolutionists are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They think we, the observer, are a mindless accident, debris left over from an explosion that appeared out of nowhere one day.

More at http://www.huffingto...o_b_781055.html

I'm not sure what to make of this, whether it's really a new theory or even if it's relevant to Buddhist thought. But it must be relevant, mustn't it, if it's putting consciousness at the centre of the cosmos, indeed as its creator and sustainer? What's more, it seems to be affirming the "mind-only" school, in which (if I understand it right) physical phenomena, together with mental acts arising from store-consciousness, have only relative existence, the only absolute being the mind from which they are derived (what Jakusho Kwong, the American Zen master, calls "Big Mind").

Not being very literate in Physics I also couldn't see what was so amazing in Lanza's suggestion that a consciousness-created universe "makes sense if you assume that the Big Bang is the end of the chain of physical causality, not the beginning." Buddhism speaks of aeons, of kalpas, and I had always assumed, since I first heard of the Singularity, that it was the end of one cycle and the beginning of another (about 3.5 kalpas according to classical sources).

Lanza's article and book on"biocentrism" have received a mixed reception. David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said that Lanza's "work is a wake-up call." Nobel laureate (in Physiology or Medicine) E. Donnall Thomas said,"Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. The work is a scholarly consideration of science and philosophy that brings biology into the central role in unifying the whole." Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss stated,"It may represent interesting philosophy, but it doesn't look, at first glance,as if it will change anything about science." Wake Forest University scientist and professor of medicine Anthony Atala stated,"This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come." In USA Today Online, astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza's concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor"and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice,I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics." Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, said he did not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. [...]He's stopping where the fun begins." Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, pointed out that Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum mechanics: "What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all?It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hel_l no!" Indian physician and writer Deepak Chopra stated that "Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting"and that "his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence." (From Wikipedia. Biocentrism: Cosmology)

Edited November 20, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

"Lanza's insights into the nature of consciousness [are] original and exciting"and that "his theory of biocentrism is consistent with the most ancient wisdom traditions of the world which says that consciousness conceives, governs, and becomes a physical world. It is the ground of our Being in which both subjective and objective reality come into existence."

It's difficult to imagine consciousness without an entity (observer) to be conscious.

I picture an early universe, too hostile to sustain life, may as well not have existed in the absence of an observer/s.

Perhaps that is what enlightenment is.

The experience of pure universal consciousness without an observer??

[christiaan]

Xangsamhua, this is a interesting contribution. It affects thinking, reliable and unreliable thinking.

I would like to ask you if you can be more specific about questions you do have related to this 'new' theory.

And within the context of this forum, questions relating this story to Buddhism.

Thanks in advance.

[Xangsamhua]

Xangsamhua, this is a interesting contribution. It affects thinking, reliable and unreliable thinking.

I would like to ask you if you can be more specific about questions you do have related to this 'new' theory.

And within the context of this forum, questions relating this story to Buddhism.

Thanks in advance.

Thank you for asking. I requires me to focus.

My questions:

1. In what way is "biocentrism" different from "anthropocentrism"? The belief that the cosmos makes most sense if seen as a set of conditions that makes humanity possible ("anthropocentrism") is something I remember hearing in church as a teenager 50 years ago. Paul Davies, in The Mind of God (1992), a very widely read book, gave some support to the anthropocentric hypothesis. I read it in 1993 and, from memory, he seemed to promote this hypothesis, but I can't remember how much. Certainly he spoke of the role of the observer in quantum physics and the difficulties this presents for the Einsteinian paradigm.

2. Does "biocentrism" place the "self" or the "soul" at the centre of creation? If so, does it resemble (as I suspect Deepak Chopra believes it does) the cosmology and theology of the Vedas and Hinduism? However, even if so, I can see by unpacking the concepts of self and soul, of atman and Brahman, that these could be reconciled with Buddhist teaching of anatta. From a non-dualist perspective, atman and anatta, God and No-God are not contradictions, but limited concepts and artificial polarities.

3. Is the current paradigm, according to Lanza, that the universe and the laws of nature "popped out of nothingness"? Is this what scientists, and atheists, think? What of the alternative view that there never was any "nothingness" for the universe to pop out of? Becoming aware of existence, we become aware of its possible negation and, though we have never experienced "nothingness" and there appears to be no "nothingness" in the cosmos, we assume, because we can conceive of it, that nothingness is possible. However, this is no stronger an argument for the inevitability of nothingness as the source of creation than for the existence of God simply because we can conceive of him ("that of which nothing higher can be conceived" - Anselm's Ontological Argument).

4. I mentioned being underwhelmed by Lanza's "Eureka" moment of discovery that the Singularity might be the end of a process rather than the beginning. Has this really just occurred to him or has he been badly reported in this review of his views?

5. Is "consciousness" the new Watchmaker? If so, is consciousness another name for the deity of Deism, and if so, what's new? Or is consciousness and all the phenomena of the universe so embedded that we are re-presented, courtesy of Lanza, with Spinoza's God, or the God of the Panentheists (much admired by Liberal Protestants and some Liberal Catholics - a God who is so immanent that his transcendence is barely conceivable). Or, as I suggested before, is Lanza's God Brahman?

6. Is it good science, or just more speculation? If it's not falsifiable, how can it be put forward as an exciting new theory. A small army of scientists might be called up in defence of the biocentric hypothesis, but are they defending it as a scientific theory or simply as plausible, though unfalsifiable (and therefore unverifiable) speculation?

Incidentally, the Wikipedia article on Biocentrism states that Lanza cites Schopenhauer among others in support of his theory of the primacy of consciousness, but Schopenhauer, a professed atheist, did not see the "Will" as consciously decisive, but as lacking any passion or self-awareness. His "Will" is simply a supremely primitive source of energy that over aeons has produced self-consciousness, thought, creativity and a yearning for the transcendent (most highly manifested in music).

[christiaan]

Reading all of your contribution I would ask; isn't all what you mention relevant?

When awareness would be the core of what we call God to be experienced in consciousness, and some of this awareness would have become physical by compacting., then we would see a sequence of happenings.

When awareness would be the core, the beginning and so the singularity,....after the manifestation of awareness in matter, awareness at some point will withdraw again in pure awareness, so in singularity again.

One could think of awareness as breathing out physical existence and breathing in physical existence.

Could it not be possible awareness came to physical existence first in biocentrism and evolving over to anthropocentrism then evolving over into pure spiritualism?

Old books tell about this.

The Bible tells God first created human (within spiritual existence) then - second part of Genesis - continues to tell about the creation of the physical world describing after all other realms of physical existence condensed down (from spiritual existence) in physical existence, only then the human spirit (could) entered physical existence.

One could look up to this as a sculptor in wood who makes the sculpture, his idea of this sculpture, come to existence by removing what is not part of that sculpture.

Wouldn't it be possible that since humans are spiritual beings in awareness and consciousness equal to God -being the pure awareness without beginning or end- that humans more and more will get and have direct influence to the world of matter by spiritual powers, as we have now indirect out of our knowledge by physical powers?

When people say the world popped out of nothingness, this nothingness to them is nothingness when only think in physical terms?

Can we say when the world popped out of awareness it did not poppped out of nothingness but out of something so refined and of such a quality that we cannot 'see' this when we do not look with our spiritual eyes?

And are meditation and practice there, not to be just involved with our self to reach happiness out of avoiding suffering, but to open our spiritual eyes, so we can 'see'.

Isn't all we can hear and read in relation to the world telling about this world?

We are all travelling to ' the top of the mountain' , along our personal, cultural and often religious routes.

We all describe what we see during our journey to the top.

What we see is related to the places we pass, where we dwell, in the sequences of our lifes, lifes we live to see and experience the different sides of the mountain.

All that is seen is part of the mountain.

Only at the top we can see spiritual truth, in a sequence of higher stages of enlightenment.

These were just some thoughts as a reaction to your contribution.

[honu]

At a glance this looks like sloppy philosophy to me (but I appreciate the reference, it was interesting). I see nothing to do with Buddhism but I'll comment anyway.

To begin with a separate point, the initial idea about the low probability of life working out as it has is based on a flawed premise, that of looking back on a series of events and claiming one outcome was highly unlikely. A clearer assessment would recognize that any one outcome was highly unlikely, but there being just one outcome was inevitable. Take selecting one card after another randomly from a deck. The chances of getting that order was magnificently low, 52 factorial or 8 x 10 to the 27th (the 10 to the 49th power mentioned in relation to this reality occuring seemed to come out of thin air). Evolution works as a theory because it claims a lot of highly unlikely things can happen over time if supporting mechanisms develop on their own, that is, if the process includes repetition. There are many possible corrolaries: for example, non-sustainable life could start but later no one would know. If sentient life evolves then the evidence is just in that existence, with traces of initial causes much more difficult to get to.

As far as the philosophy goes there seems to be little worth considering (with the obvious limitation that I've only read this article and Wikepedia article myself, both limited sources). Saying space and time are functions of consciousness rather than physics is not a particularly inventive twist on the standard realism / idealism debate, and relativity has nothing to do with that claim anyway. It's just a more complex model of some aspects of physical reality than Newtonian physics. Of course human perception is shaped by a human perspective based on space and time, but moving on to claim anything about that is the problem. That space and time don't exist without us? Only in the same sense we experience them, and you're back to saying nothing at all.

The article wants to conclude that consciousness started the whole process but it's not clear how (it doesn't say). You might as well start referencing God at that point; that's essentially where you are. Atheists and agnostics are just arguing that you're only giving a vague conceptual name to your ignorance, that it doesn't add any explanatory value to make a first cause a single conscious entity, and they have a point. Generalizing consciousness itself seems a step in the wrong direction; how would that cause the Big Bang? You need God, or at least most of what's meant by the concept. The strongest evidence for an ill-formed argument is that this reality seems unlikely to have happened but evolutionists would give you that. Everyone more or less agrees on that much, even people that think that life might not be that interesting and that there might be tons of it in the universe (because each case would be interesting and different, most likely, or maybe not so much from a broader perspective, who knows). Maybe every planet has a guy that eats a lot of hot dogs at some point.

[christiaan]

Thanks for your contribution,

A good explanation.

One of the things I would like to ad - referring to the guy eating hotdogs - is that scientists are looking for life on other planets, somewhere in the universe, but this is in general looking for ife as we define on earth, it might be possible there are other ways of existence throughout the universe we cannot even comprehend.

[AYJAYDEE]

me personally? to learn the truth of the dhamma. there can be no other reason that i can think of.

[yellow1red1]

Here's the thing.

Existence is All.

There are two main elements to Existence.

One is Time.

The other is Thought.

Buddha's discovery of a Universe of Nothing was a clue.

Time and Thought are in a very bad marriage, struggling against each other but interdependent.

Thought has created the sub elements, Air, Fire, Earth and Water.

Thought is using these in an attempt to create an Immortality that will survive against the hurricane of Time.

Humanity, especially and in particular Free Will, actually the attempt to create Free Will, is the most up to date, though still unproven, prototype. We are the Crowns of Creation, hic up.

The Gods could not quite get it right, and Their Adam and Eve venture failed the road test. It will soon be discovered if Their Christ plan worked, or not.

In the meantime, Buddha might have been a man who created the working model, maybe.

===

This is fun, think of all of the stars in the universe, or universes for stringies. Let your mind be completely filled the endless numbers and the vast space.

As you are joyfully contemplating this number to best you can possibly imagine, seeing all of these possible stars, suddenly imagine how many molecules & atoms you are viewing. You are now imagining one hair on your body which is a bing bang in itself. (makes politicians seem rather petty)

---------

Talking about 'cylindrical' events, this Winter Solstice coincides with a total lunar eclipse. How rare is that?

[healthcaretaker]

Reading all of your contribution I would ask; isn't all what you mention relevant?

When awareness would be the core of what we call God to be experienced in consciousness, and some of this awareness would have become physical by compacting., then we would see a sequence of happenings.

When awareness would be the core, the beginning and so the singularity,....after the manifestation of awareness in matter, awareness at some point will withdraw again in pure awareness, so in singularity again.

One could think of awareness as breathing out physical existence and breathing in physical existence.

Could it not be possible awareness came to physical existence first in biocentrism and evolving over to anthropocentrism then evolving over into pure spiritualism?

Old books tell about this.

The Bible tells God first created human (within spiritual existence) then - second part of Genesis - continues to tell about the creation of the physical world describing after all other realms of physical existence condensed down (from spiritual existence) in physical existence, only then the human spirit (could) entered physical existence.

One could look up to this as a sculptor in wood who makes the sculpture, his idea of this sculpture, come to existence by removing what is not part of that sculpture.

Wouldn't it be possible that since humans are spiritual beings in awareness and consciousness equal to God -being the pure awareness without beginning or end- that humans more and more will get and have direct influence to the world of matter by spiritual powers, as we have now indirect out of our knowledge by physical powers?

When people say the world popped out of nothingness, this nothingness to them is nothingness when only think in physical terms?

Can we say when the world popped out of awareness it did not poppped out of nothingness but out of something so refined and of such a quality that we cannot 'see' this when we do not look with our spiritual eyes?

And are meditation and practice there, not to be just involved with our self to reach happiness out of avoiding suffering, but to open our spiritual eyes, so we can 'see'.

Isn't all we can hear and read in relation to the world telling about this world?

We are all travelling to ' the top of the mountain' , along our personal, cultural and often religious routes.

We all describe what we see during our journey to the top.

What we see is related to the places we pass, where we dwell, in the sequences of our lifes, lifes we live to see and experience the different sides of the mountain.

All that is seen is part of the mountain.

Only at the top we can see spiritual truth, in a sequence of higher stages of enlightenment.

These were just some thoughts as a reaction to your contribution.

Since you are refering to the bible, the bible's god and the other planets, you are not getting it.

The OP is refering to the the beginning of the universe.

As the Lord explained, nothing is permanent and science proved that energy cannot be created or destroyed, can only be transformed, it already how the universe came about.

Just like rebirth, our universe today is the rebirth or transformation of the previous world.

Of course there may be other creatures or life in the other planets. Buddhism already mentioned that. They even know how many different worlds that are related to humans. They may be other form of life in our same universe not related to us but related to the previous universe.

It took science 2000 over years to discover what Buddha since taught. So just live long enough to wait, science is going to prove more soon.