Advertisement
"By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for understanding the world," Lanza declares.
Any claim that space and time aren't cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Some of the reactions to Lanza's ideas, first set forth two years ago in an essay for The American Scholar, brand them as "pseudo-scientific philosophical claptrap" or "no better than any religion."
Lanza admits that the reviews haven't all been glowing, particularly among some physicists. "Their response has been much how you'd expect priests to respond to stem cell research," he told me Monday.
Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.
"So what Lanza says in this book is not new," Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a book review. "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, hell no."
From:
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...53.aspx
Any claim that space and time aren't cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Some of the reactions to Lanza's ideas, first set forth two years ago in an essay for The American Scholar, brand them as "pseudo-scientific philosophical claptrap" or "no better than any religion."
Lanza admits that the reviews haven't all been glowing, particularly among some physicists. "Their response has been much how you'd expect priests to respond to stem cell research," he told me Monday.
Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza's view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.
"So what Lanza says in this book is not new," Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a book review. "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, hell no."
From:
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archiv...53.aspx
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Biocentrism
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 9:01 AMThe biggest possible conspiracy!!!
Does it matter a bit what the american scholar thinks? -
-
Re: Biocentrism
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 9:05 AMIt is the ultimate conspiracy, isn't it? LOL! -
-
Re: Biocentrism
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 9:25 AMYeah. For many years my standard answer to conspiracy theorists is " my conspiracy eats your conspiracy for breakfast" -
-
Re: Biocentrism
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 2:54 PMand therefore, our observations and expectations about the 2012 changes, have an effect on the outcome.....yes?
thanks solari.......... -
-
Re: Biocentrism
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 3:28 PMIndeed. Sethian determinism. It's an old philosophical idea, but given what we know now about neurological bias, the subjectivist viewpoint looks somewhat more tenable. Maybe it's real value would be the assertion that we "could" create the world by observation even if we don't actually do so. -
-
Re: Biocentrism
Thu, June 18, 2009 - 3:37 PMYep: the dancer and the dance....
-
-
-
-
-