I've become obsessed with a new "theory of everything" -- one scientific explanation for the universe that seems to be consistent not only with large-scale astronomy and quantum physics, but even certain components of Eastern philosophy and metaphysics ("If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?").

The idea, called the biocentric universe, was co-conceived by stem-cell scientist Robert Lanza, who summarized the concepts in a recent article in Discover magazine* that has gotten some attention. Here's what biocentrism proposes, as I interpret it:

In its most objective, "real" sense, the universe is a chaotic blur of infinite possibilities. Neither time, nor space, nor form are properties of this blur. It is an entity representing absolute chaos, made of nothing in particular and existing nowhere (or everywhere) and at no time (or every time). This "true," objective universe is simply the very definition of formless, timeless, dimensionless chaos; that's all. If you tried to imagine it, you'd have difficulty, as you'd inevitably think in terms of things like space and time. But really, it's more of a blurry concept than an actual, concrete thing. The only thing we know is that it's a state of chaos so profound that it encompasses every possibility of every possible universe.

Amongst that blur, somewhere there exists a possibility** such that biological life, and eventually human consciousness, emerges from the chaos. And what that consciousness perceives, when it looks out around itself, is a universe that includes space and time, matter and energy, and galaxies, stars, and planets, one of which we live on. Because, the particular cosmic possibility that produces human consciousness, necessarily also calls for the perception of physical laws and things such as galaxies and stars and planets -- not to mention space and time themselves, which actually make up the framework within which our consciousness performs its perceptions of all of the above.

To attempt an analogy, imagine that the objective universe (i.e., the "chaotic blur") is a huge vertical box that's punctured by countless horizontal pegs. If you were to drop a ball into the top of the box, the pegs would create many possible paths for the ball as it descends. In this analogy, our perceived universe -- in fact, all of our perceived existence -- would be like one specific path traced by the ball as it rattles around from the top down to the bottom. While it's only one of billions of possible paths, it's the one path that leads to our earthly sentient consciousness, so it's the one and only path that we can know about.

When I was a kid, I'd have these moments I called "philosophical attacks," in which I looked at my surroundings and could not believe for one second that what I was seeing was really, truly happening. This could not possibly be real, I'd think, literally stunned. I cannot be existing, right here, right now! So, was I right? If biocentrism is true, is the universe -- as we see it -- real or a mere illusion? Well, it's real to the extent that a film you're watching is real, at a moment in which you're completely engrossed in the action. It's real in the way the sky was real to Jim Carrey's character in The Truman Show: We simply don't know any other reality. It's real to us, and that's all that matters.

The experiments of quantum physics (as applied to biocentrism) suggest that when you flip a coin***, the outcome is both heads and tails until such a point that human consciousness observes one outcome or the other. If you flip a coin in the dark, the coin exists in both states until the precise moment that you switch on the lights; then, reality emerges from the realm of mere possibility. However, if a friend is in the room with you, he or she always observes the same outcome that you do. This suggests that there is a single unifying "cosmic consciousness," one perceived reality, that human beings collectively plug into, with their brains. Animals and young children, it seems, are variously able to plug into this one reality in the same way that adult humans can. At a point in the earth's history when there were only bacteria, the world did not exist in the way we think of it today; it was, like the objective universe I described, pretty much just a blur of possibilities, with nobody around to distinguish among them. However, if a randomly possible change in the environment could have some effect on a living organism -- say, causing it to move in one direction toward a nutrient -- then that possibility became reality, for that bacterium. By the time we humans came along, with our ability to imagine the past and the future, ask questions about our surroundings, and write down our observations, the fully developed picture of our world, as we see it today, began to emerge. Still, randomness surrounds us -- specifically, everywhere we aren't looking. That includes the future, which is an uncertain blur because none of us has perceived it yet.

It's unclear whether any experiment could ever directly test biocentrism. If it thrives as a theory, it may do so merely because scientific knowledge is more consistent with its implications than any other explanation. It's also unclear whether, say, life on other planets is even possible in the biocentric universe. On the one hand, our universe need only be a terrestrial perception for the job to get done. But we perceive a very large universe, and if consciousness on Earth is a part of it, why can't consciousness also emerge amongst the blurry-possible billions of other potential planets we have yet to discover? And if it does, would these beings plug into the same cosmic consciousness that we plug into? Or could they exist only in parallel universes -- those that took a different path through the swarm of possibilities? In that case, we Earthlings would be alone, the only ones in the theater watching this great cosmic movie.

I'd say it's an exciting time in the history of thought.



* I won't review the scientific underpinnings of the biocentric universe here, but if you're interested, by all means check out the fascinating article. Also check out the Boltzmann brain, a radical and prescient hypothesis from the 1800s that seems entirely consistent with biocentrism.

** Actually an extremely complex web of possibilities (or events, or causes and effects) that arise out of the primary possibility that time and space could be perceived.

*** A hypothetical coin that has a truly random outcome. Here I am extrapolating the micro world (particles/waves) into the macro (coin) because perhaps that is what biocentrism suggests.

I'm constantly getting messages on YouTube from people who think they have a question that challenges evolution. These questions are always "what abouts," as I call them -- objections that may seem plausible on the surface, but only because the person doesn't have enough information. I've made fun of the "what about" tactic in my videos, for example: "Gravity says that things should fall to the ground. But what about helium balloons? And what about birds? Gravity doesn't seem to apply to them."

This is tricky, because if you don't respond to someone's "what about" -- or if you respond in a snotty way without answering their question -- then they can claim victory. ("You couldn't answer my simple question! Ha!") So I try, but regardless, it winds up being a pointless exercise. In every single case.

Here's an exchange that happened today. My responses are in bold. (You'll notice that I stopped responding.)


----------

Subject: can i get your feelings on this please

Natural selection,eviloution of gay mutants. (gay mutants = born gay). Gay mutations by nature contradict the survival of fittest rule. Observable gay behavior recognizes an anti-survival nature here. AIDS clearly demonstrates a second organism is in agreement with the threat, assisting the extinction of the gay mutations. If you disagree, then prove empirically that our species is not threatened by the growth of gay mutants.



"Gay mutants" have a function in human society as caretakers, mediators, etc., which is probably why they continue to exist in every human culture.

In a social species like man, it's all about survival of the group and its genetic similarities, not the individual -- for the same reason that bees will sacrifice their lives for the sake of the colony. Common misperception among lay people.

"a second organism is in agreement with the threat" makes no sense from a biological perspective. That doesn't happen in biological systems, nor would there be there any reason for it to. (I got my degree in biology from U.C. Berkeley.)



[same person, about an hour later]
hi can you explain! the survival of the fittest why we still have sheep?

sheep 1 born per year
wolf 6 born per year (massive out numbering growth for wolf)
Q1 In the millions of years before mans involvement to farm them why did wolf not eat all sheep?
Q2 lambs and sheep are easy prey
why did they evolve in first place
under natural selection guide lines they should never have evilolved



Because, for one, modern domesticated sheep are about as similar to their wild ancestors as poodles are to their wolf ancestors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouflon

Look, I'm not on YouTube to teach basic biology to complete strangers. If you're actually interested in evolution, try picking up a book.



[moments later]
where is the sheep anstors?

im just itrested



[moments after that]
meat & chemicials ! worth nothing much
why do you think your comment has any value? (chemicial reactions are common ) who knows if your chemicials are needing a top up



[moments after that]
but you are not any thing in relation to the universe

you are a speck of a speck and have a half moment in history to exist then nothing

this is why your coments are an enviromental wast

cheers

----------


He's right about one thing -- my responses certainly were a "wast."

God bless America.

Pop quiz: Let's say you have a pile of dry leaves that you raked and want to dispose of. You could burn them in a big fire, or you could compost them and put the compost on your organic vegetable garden. Which method would release more carbon into the atmosphere?

Or, you have a pile of firewood. You could burn the wood in your fireplace, or you could let it decay naturally with the help of fungus and termites. Which choice is more carbon-friendly?

The answer is that in each case, both methods put exactly the same amount of carbon into the atmosphere: all of it. The cellulose and other carbon-containing molecules are broken down and oxidized, whether by fire or by living organisms, and the eventual waste product is carbon dioxide. Burning merely accomplishes this very quickly. Burning leaves and wood also releases other pollutants, which makes burning environmentally less desirable -- but in terms of carbon alone, the carbon in the plant matter will reach the air either way. It's just a question of whether it will take minutes, or months/years.

When people talk about "carbon footprint," they're really referring to how much new carbon a person is responsible for bringing into the environment. Coal, gasoline, and natural gas represent sequestered carbon (in the form of hydrocarbons), having been taken from the atmosphere by plants and animals millions of years ago and stored underground. Burning this material releases carbon that hasn't been in the environment since the age of the dinosaurs, or earlier.

Conversely, with your pile of leaves or firewood, the only way to prevent that carbon from going back into the air would be to bury it far underground, or otherwise sequester it in some way (something that green industries are trying to accomplish with carbon dioxide). If you don't do that, at least in terms of carbon, it doesn't matter how you get rid of it. The carbon is already in the environment, and there it'll stay.

A couple of people have sent me a fictional story about two Christians in a philosophy class confronting their atheist professor. (Maybe you've seen it; apparently it's been circulating by e-mail for years. A version can be found here.*) The story, which frankly is an embarrassment to anyone who has sat in a philosophy class or studied science, is an elaborate take on one argument for theism that I see over and over. Basically: "Yes, it may be true that we cannot see God, but what about magnetism, or electrons, or the wind? We can't see those, either. And what about love, or hope, or compassion, or any kind of thought -- not only can we not see them, but in addition science can't detect them, can't explain exactly what they are or how they work. If God doesn't exist, then the wind, hope, and love all must not exist, either."

This idea was touched on in the film "Contact," in the scene where Ellie Arroway demands proof of God, and Palmer Joss responds by asking her to prove that she loved her father.

If you're inclined to believe, it's fairly convincing. Surely, there are intangible things that actually do exist, so of course God is like that, too. But the argument introduces two classes of entities: merely invisible things, and states of mind, and it conflates the two classes into one class, the assumption being that God must be in that class as well.

Let's think of some merely invisible things: Air. Wind. Magnetism. Radiation. Low-voltage electricity. Hydrogen gas. "You can't see any of them, right?" Perhaps, but why the sudden emphasis on human vision? All of those things, and any other real-but-invisible thing you can think of, have effects that can be directly observed. Air, when it circulates as wind, makes leaves move. Magnetism affects a compass. Radiation can be picked up with a Geiger counter, electricity with a voltmeter. Hydrogen burns when ignited along with oxygen. Unlike acts of God, these things are all 100% predictable, testable, and repeatable; there is no case where hydrogen is not flammable or a magnetic field doesn't affect a compass. Basically, for all real-but-invisible things we know about, we have some kind of device or process that will reliably detect their presence. So, could we come up with a device that detects the presence of an invisible "God field"? Perhaps -- but if we do, atheists will no longer have much of a defensible position. To date, such a device hasn't been invented, so atheists remain atheists.

The other class in the argument comprises human states of mind: emotions, feelings, thoughts. I'm prepared to say that hope and compassion didn't exist on Earth in, say, the Devonian period 350 million years ago. Are theists prepared to say God didn't, either? I doubt it. But if they are, then we are in complete agreement. To me God seems to be a state of the human mind in the same way as love, anger, or hope are: a subjective phenomenon confined exclusively to the self. I have no issue with that kind of God whatsoever. (Just don't tell me He caused the Steelers to beat the Cardinals.)

The most likely counter-objection to what I'm saying would be something like, "God is more like a state of mind than a mere invisible thing, except that He exists independent of humans, existed before humans, and will exist after humans." Well, fine, but that kind of destroys the analogy between God and fleeting, human states of mind, doesn't it?

If God exists, then He exists in His own class separate from merely invisible things and states of mind. That's the God that the theist must argue for.



* The most egregious misstatement in the story is, "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist." There's a subtle but critical distinction between having a position (saying something) and not having a position (saying nothing). "Science" -- and by the way it's quite a stretch to identify science in such singular, authoritarian terms, as in "the Vatican" or "the White House" -- is unable to take any position whatsoever on the existence of God.