Does anyone else think this article is complete baloney

In summary, this article is a thinly veiled attempt to promote Platonic realism, which is a philosophical concept that says that reality is dependent upon how we perceive it. It's outdated and doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
  • #1
ougnala
6
0
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yes. Unfortunately typical, though.
 
  • #3
"The farther we peer into space, the more we realize that the nature of the universe cannot be understood fully by inspecting spiral galaxies or watching distant supernovas. It lies deeper. It involves our very selves."

Do our ego's need a check or what?
 
  • #4
Actually, it seems to me an appeal to "Platonic Realism"- that is, our concept of the universe is as much dependent upon how we perceive the universe as upon the "real" universe itself. So my interpretation of this is that when they say "life creates the universe" they are simply saying that "life", i.e. us and the spider mentioned in the beginning of the article, create the universe we perceive.

Not "complete baloney" in that sense. (I was tempted to say "there is salami, also"!)
 
  • #5
philnow said:
"The farther we peer into space, the more we realize that the nature of the universe cannot be understood fully by inspecting spiral galaxies or watching distant supernovas. It lies deeper. It involves our very selves."

Do our ego's need a check or what?

I read that quote and I was thinking they were all doped up on weed or something.

"Duuuude the universe is like sooo inside of all of us maaan".

"Like totally duuude. Pass the bongg man"
 
  • #6
I can understand the point they are trying to make: we see the universe as our bodies are meant to. There could be total other things around us, but our eyes are incapable of seeing them.
It's like, whose to say that an apple is red? Would red still exist if we all suddenly went blind? Or, are we seeing the apple incorrectly? Maybe the apple is really blue, but our eyes see it as red.

That article is 100% philosophy.
 
  • #7
Pshock92 said:
That article is 100% philosophy.

I agree. I'm moving this to the Philosophy forum.
 
  • #8
They could have used other arguments - that reality is made up of mathematical point 'particles' with no apparent physical size. Or that the universe's size through the 'eyes' of a photon would be zero. Or that the singularity that gave birth to our universe, according to our present understanding, is not expanding into anything but into itself(don't try to imagine this, you can't). But if they are going to make such an argument, how is "we create reality" better than "our universe might be a simulation", given the fact that the very universe we perceive, appears to have existed long before humans showed up?
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Pshock92 said:
I can understand the point they are trying to make: we see the universe as our bodies are meant to. There could be total other things around us, but our eyes are incapable of seeing them.
It's like, whose to say that an apple is red? Would red still exist if we all suddenly went blind? Or, are we seeing the apple incorrectly? Maybe the apple is really blue, but our eyes see it as red.

That article is 100% philosophy.

Red isn't a thing, it's just a word to describe what humans perceive when photons of wavelength ~625-740nm enter our eyes.

Blue is ~440–490nm, so I'm going to have to say that a red apple isn't really blue...to humans, that is. I'm sure a dog doesn't see a red apple the same way we do, but the range of wavelengths of the photons is still the exact same, now we're just using different perception machinery.
 
  • #10
"That article is 100% philosophy"

-- and very outdated...18th and 19th century 'serious' theories. The problem (one of them...besides that its very unclear what is actually being said) is that folks take these 'big metaphysical' theories and try to intertwine them with science. There are serious philosophical questions...that article gives them a bad name. I get the feeling such folks are much less concerned with truth and much more concerned with convincing someone that they are a deep thinking genius.
 

1. Does anyone else in the scientific community agree with this article?

No, the scientific community relies on evidence-based research and peer-reviewed studies to form conclusions. If an article is not supported by these methods, it is not considered valid in the scientific community.

2. Why is this article considered "baloney" or not credible?

This article may be considered "baloney" because it lacks evidence, is not supported by other studies, or makes claims that are not scientifically sound. It is important to critically evaluate articles and their sources to determine their credibility.

3. Can a single article disprove established scientific theories?

No, a single article is not enough to disprove a well-established scientific theory. Scientific theories are supported by a vast amount of evidence and have been thoroughly tested and validated by the scientific community.

4. How can I determine if an article is credible?

To determine the credibility of an article, it is important to consider the source, the author's expertise and credentials, the evidence provided, and if the article has been peer-reviewed. It is also helpful to read articles from multiple sources and compare the information.

5. Should I trust articles that make bold or controversial claims?

It is important to approach articles with bold or controversial claims with caution. These claims should be supported by evidence and have been thoroughly tested and validated by the scientific community. It is always best to critically evaluate the claims and seek out additional sources for more information.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
614
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
982
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
868
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
5K
Back
Top