The Science Thread

[Louanne Learning]

Dr. Robert Lanza, a stem cell pioneer, has a series of books touting Biocentrism.

From what I’ve read so far - Biocentrism is a philosophical concept, rather than a scientific theory.
The universe exists because we are conscious of it.

Lanza’s 2007 essay – “A New Theory of the Universe” – proposed a biocentric universe – which places biology above all other sciences.

His main idea seems to be that "space, time, and the nature of life and death itself depends on the observer in us."

From the article I linked:

Biocentrism … (shifts our worldview) … with the revolutionary view that life creates the universe instead of the other way around. In this new paradigm, life is not just an accidental byproduct of the laws of physics…

Switching perspective from physics to biology unlocks the cages in which Western science has unwittingly managed to confine itself. Biocentrism shatters the reader’s ideas of life, time and space, and even death.

One criticism that’s been levelled at his ideas is that he never actually explains how consciousness arises at all.

Anyway, I’m going to spend a little bit of time reading the book you linked. Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Louanne Learning]

but even now we’re discovering life that exists without oxygen, or in extreme heat, or in many habitats originally thought fundamentally inhospitable to life.

Yeah, there are a lot of weird lifeforms right here on Earth, like those extremophiles!

And even when you think of the vast diversity that exists right here - bacteria, protozoa, fish, birds, mammals ... etc etc

Nature is very inventive.

Consider the hagfish - it has no skull but does have a vertebral column!

 

[Louanne Learning]

how can a 13.8 billion year old universe expanding at the speed of light be 93 billion light-years in diameter?

Science makes conclusions based on the best available calculations and observations we have. If something does not compute, that calls for more investigation and more calculation. In any case, I did find an answer to your question.

First of all, the 13.8 billion light years is derived from the radius of a sphere of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation that is being observed by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck satellites. These satellites have mapped the structures which are precursors to galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Now, the radiation from the CMB measured by the WMAP and Planck satellites has, in the meantime, continued to expand so that the structures measured in the CMB signal would be 46.5 billion light years from us at this time. Second, the 93 billion light year diameter estimate refers to the “observable” universe.

Now, if we waited another 46.5 – 13.8 = 32.7 billion years, we should actually be able to see the light emitted right now from those superclusters of galaxies which formed from the CMB structures. The light is already on its way towards us but it will take a while to reach us since it will have to come from a sphere with a diameter of 93 billion light years. This is the explanation for the difference; the “observable” universe is larger than we can see it today.

This is only, at best, a theoretical estimate of the diameter of the universe, though. We now know that due to dark energy the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This acceleration will not allow us to see those superclusters which are now 46.5 billion light years from us. In fact, if we wait the requisite 32.7 billion years those superclusters will be receding from us at a rate that is greater than the speed of light. We just will not be able to observe those galaxies and clusters of galaxies which have formed at the edge of the universe.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I've just downloaded Lanza's book to my Kindle.

Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe​

Looking forward to reading it.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Science makes conclusions based on the best available calculations and observations we have. If something does not compute, that calls for more investigation and more calculation. In any case, I did find an answer to your question.

That's interesting but still a lot of estimates and speculation. And the cosmologists would agree with that, it being the one field of science that can get away with inferring invisible/undetectable things like dark matter and dark energy to account for a mathematical discrepancy. Normally that would point to bad math, not invisible things. Which if you think about it, makes certain aspects of cosmology closer to religion, which also ascribes unexplained events to invisible/unknowable things. Before we toss our teddies on the floor, I'm not quibbling with cosmology or any of its conclusions, just pointing out that using invisible things to explain visible events ain't much different than saying, "God did it." This shouldn't surprise us as many people regard science with the same fanatical, intransigent devotion as others do religion. They think they're different, but they're actually cut from the cloth. Not the regular people, but the fanatical fringe.

On a side note, the CMB is fascinating radiates on the 21 cm line and is the static you hear on your radio and old school television sets. Literally the echo of the big bang, which is radiates in all directions.

 

[Naomasa298]

Putting our critical thinking caps on, how can a 13.8 billion year old universe expanding at the speed of light be 93 billion light-years in diameter?

Simply because space is also expanding.

 

[Naomasa298]

Nature is very inventive.

Not exactly. Nature is simply random. It's not "inventing" or experimenting mechanisms in any systematic sense - random mutations arise and whatever works, sticks around.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Lanza starts his book with a couple of questions that don't quite sit right with me. He asks:

Why is the universe so exquisitely fine-tuned to support life?

Why are the laws of physics exactly balanced for animal life to exist?

By asking these "why?" questions, he's hinting that the universe was designed to support life, and my point-of-view would be rather that life happened by random in the universe that developed. Maybe there is another universe somewhere else where the strong nuclear force was a little bit less and no elements beyond hydrogen formed.

He's hinting at a cause-and-effect that I don't think exists. in any case, I'm curious to see how he is going to answer these questions.

 

[Louanne Learning]

It's not "inventing" mechanisms

I meant inventive as far as species are concerned - the diversity of life

 

[Homer Potvin]

Why is the universe so exquisitely fine-tuned to support life?

It is? I mean, Earth might be, but nothing else appears... aw, fuck it. I'm out.

 

[Louanne Learning]

It is? I mean, Earth might be, but nothing else appears

He mentions stuff like the power of the Big Bang, and forces - all physical conditions capable of allowing life to evolve.

fuck it. I'm out.

 

[Naomasa298]

Why is the universe so exquisitely fine-tuned to support life?

All environments are uniquely attuned to support whatever life exists on it - the life evolves to fit the niche, not the other way around. Therefore, the life will be perfectly attuned to whatever environment it exists in. If the conditions of the universe were different, life would be different in order to exist in that universe.

The question is the wrong way around.

 

[Louanne Learning]

All environments are uniquely attuned to support whatever life exists on it - the life evolves to fit the niche, not the other way around. Therefore, the life will be perfectly attuned to whatever environment it exists in. If the conditions of the universe were different, life would be different in order to exist in that universe.

The question is the wrong way around.

Yes! that's why I had trouble with his questions.

But to be fair, he was talking about physical conditions. Like, for example the strong nuclear force. If it was any weaker, elements could not be built in stars from hydrogen. If all you have is hydrogen, you're not going to get life.

Is the strong nuclear force the same everywhere? In all possible universes?

 

[Naomasa298]

Is the strong nuclear force the same everywhere? In all possible universes?

Depends if there are infinite universes, or if the universe is infinite in time and space. If the answer to either question is yes, then the answer to your question is no, because all possible states of the universe will exist at some point, at some time, an infinite number of times. Every event will repeat an infinite number of times. God, there's a depressing thought.

 

[Louanne Learning]

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Suddenly I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's "The Elements".

I have to wonder why anyone would want to lick Beryllium (chemical element #4), given that it's highly toxic (especially when inhaled) and can cause severe respiratory issues.

Number 84 and 85 (the first on the "see you on the other side" list) are Polonium and Astatine, both highly radioactive and poisonous.

Licking # 86 (Radon) is an especially bad idea. It's not only radioactive but also colorless, odorless, and tasteless ... so you won't experience anything before it gives you lung cancer. =P Not to mention that, since it's a gas, licking it is not something you can even do (at least not intentionally).

Memorising the table must have been easier in ancient Greek times. Back then it was just earth and air and fire and water.