"* The first living organism could have been more complex, but statistically, it's most likely that life began in the simplest form and that complexity arose later."

Statistics become almost irrelevant in a biocentric universe.

"-- but if the biocentric hypothesis turns out to be the best "theory of everything," then in 100 years, it will simply be the best way to answer the question."

Oh God, this is sounding like religion. What makes this the best "theory of everything." What defines everything? Why not just say God did it.. The same logical evidence can say 'he dun it.' We can have theories for specific things(and specific being incredibly general), but a theory for everything is impossible when we probably can't view everything when we are on the inside.

 

>Statistics become almost irrelevant in a biocentric universe.

I agree, but it seems safe to say simpler beginnings were more likely than complex beginnings. Even if biocentrism in no way rules out even highly complex beginnings.

>Oh God, this is sounding like religion. What makes this the best "theory of everything."

I appreciate the challenge! You're right, that ending wasn't worded great. The biocentric universe isn't the best theory of everything. I don't think it's even a theory (which is why I always call it a hypothesis). However, as it stands, it may suggest why we observe the quantum-level (and other) phenomena that we see -- and then if people begin to take the idea seriously, there could develop lines of research to investigate. Perhaps involving living cells and entanglement, or decision-making experiments involving single neurons. At this point I'm interested only in getting people to think about it; I don't claim to know any Truth.

Some people say that evolution sounds like religion, because for them, there isn't any evidence -- no videos of "frogs turning into people." But of course there's tons of evidence. Evolution is the best "theory of everything involving the diversity of life on earth" that we have. And maybe in 100 years, after it's made a few predictions that have checked out, and it's proved useful in building artificial intelligence, we'll be saying that biocentrism is the best "theory of everything encompassing biology and physics." I say it's worth giving the idea a chance!
 

   How did life originate?

 

What if there was life on Mars before Earth, and life got here "extra-terrestrially" as some have proposed?

Also, what if (like the article I posted above states) the primordial soup was not what we have now --an oxygen laden atmosphere, but one of primarily reduced substances of methane, ammonia and water, as put forth by Oparin and Haldane--and that lightening strikes and the sun would supply more than enough energy for the hydrogens and electrons in such an atmosphere to convert inorganic matter to organic matter that accumulated over time because of the lack of (oxidation) decay and micro-organisms?

 

The question is, are those early organisms aware that they're on Mars, as opposed to Earth -- or that there are lightning strikes, hydrogen and electrons, etc.? I would guess not. In which case, all of those things would be unresolved and uncertain in their universe. We humans, being the first organisms to know about this early history, would be saddled with trying to figure out, retroactively, what might have happened (among those processes which *could* have happened).

 

Is communication the key? In other words, if organisms communicate among themselves (in ways we may or may not be aware of) would that not be indicative of their own "awareness", whether we humans are aware of it, or not?

 

Bonnie Bassler discovered that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning implications for medicine, industry -- and our understanding of ourselves.


 

So you're asking when did "awareness" occur?

 

I think awareness occurs when non-instinctual decisions are made. That is why I don't think bacteria perceive. I think anything with a brain that has some consciousness is actually perceive.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines perceive as:
1. a: to attain awareness or understanding of b: to regard as being such
2.   : to become aware of through the senses
When an organism like bacteria reacts to its senses, it isn't a controlled reaction, it is a hardcoded reaction. If A, then B. Now you could argue that human's do that on a more complex(in our minds) level, where we don't actually entirely make our own decisions, which I believe may easily be true, but for the sake of this discussion, we do make decisions such as I am deciding to type this up.

So I come to the conclusion that the world would be a flat unlimited space of seemingly unimaginable but imagined earth, if we did indeed live in a biocentric universe. If bacteria(when I say bacteria, I mean the first organism) does indeed 'perceive,' then our universe may just be an infinite primordial soup, that would slowly change as organisms evolved, but to not much more than maybe a liquid based lifeform.

 

Here's an interesting (some might say bizarre) hypothesis on the origin of consciousness: Bicameralism

 

Thanks Crispy, I'll check it out. Regarding awareness and reaction, I'm not so sure that bacteria respond to their environment in a truly predictable, algorithmic manner. Some believe that even at the lowest levels, this is what separates life from non-life, and that no non-algorithmic computer program, simulating even a one-celled organism, could be written (at least in the way it's currently done). Fascinating stuff.

 

you're welcome! ---this may sound really "out there"..but what if bacteria somehow "conspired" to create us, as well as all the other living things/beings on earth, I mean it sounds as if bacteria is the true "architect" of all organic matter? Like, bacteria is really God or something? ..and that playing around with it's communication as the scientist in the TED video I posted above proposes has some unforeseen negative ramifications for doing so or something??

Know what I mean?

 

Before evolution the big theory was "the spontaneous creation of life" that is flies were seen crawling from mud pools, so they just "happened". Atheists said "that will do me" and carried on sinning. Same now. Repent and believe the Good News.
 

Well, you nailed us. All of this science business is all about justifying sinning by godless atheists. At least science also brought us Internet porn, to help facilitate this sinning.

 

Good post.

This reminds me, and is very similar too, Capra's The Tao of physics and Laszlo's Science and the Akashic field, though i don't think either men posited a bio-centric view. But the notion that everything came into being through the probabilities of a "formless void," or an "empty vacuum," makes perfect sense, and is complementary to my own worldview, as well as Laszlo's and Capra's.

I've always thought highly of the East's contemplative traditions, especially Mahayana and Zen Buddhism...

So this makes me wonder...if the idea of a "bio-centric" universe rings true, and life burst into being with the "Bio-Bang," was life firstly nonphysical and nonlocal, as the contemplative traditions and some quantum physicists, definitely attest to?

This thought also encourages the idea of panspermia, which would suggest that life started, and evolution started, for that matter, through the arrival of species alien to our own earth...and thus propagated...sparking the evolutionary chain of events that ended up with homo sapiens and a whole taxonomy of various species.

Kudos.

 

Thanks. I think that under this hypothesis, life necessarily had to come into being along with the universe it perceived...otherwise there'd be nothing to perceive, and in my opinion that means no life. Also, I think the first life would need to be able to reproduce, in some mathematically feasible way, and that requires a physical universe. Although, it would not be like the universe we humans know today. And the first life wouldn't be particularly local....

 

How do you define life in this context?

So you're sayin the universe was radically different at its inception? Through the "Bio-Bang" i presume. It's it nifty idea, but overwhelmingly speculative. And i like speculation.

 

I'd define life, under the biocentric context, as anything that has a capacity to observe its environment and respond in a non-algorithmic (not entirely predictable) manner. But it might have other essential qualities or properties as well. By the universe being radically different, I just mean it would have been a swarm of uncertainty, with the only "knowable" things being the first organism itself and its immediate, observable surroundings. If we could go back in time and resolve it for ourselves, in a human manner, it would look similar to the present universe...but we weren't there and can't time-travel, so it can be considered to be very different.

Some people hate speculation. I love it. What I'm trying to do is piece together a bunch of workable speculations into a unified biocentric perspective on physics and biology. If it ever becomes a real theory that people take seriously, I believe it could be actively put to the test someday. But for now, it's all about the speculation....

 

Have you read Capra and Laszlo?
 

No but I've been familiar with Capra for a long time. I didn't know about Laszlo. He's one of many whose ideas seem to be pointing toward the same direction in slightly different ways...others include David Bohm, George Berkeley from back in the day, and closest of all, John Wheeler.