Biocentrism Demystified A Response To Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanzas Notion of A Conscious Universe

11/22/2010 Biocentrism Demystified: A Response t…
Home
About
Archives
Contributors
Contact Us
Indian Skeptic
Community Forums
Enter your search keyword
Stumble! I like it! Share All topics 17 favorites
Blog
Featured Posts
General News
God Watch
Con-Alert
Paranormal
Pseudoscience
Science P.O.V.
Culture
Ethics
Naturalism
Social Action
Creative Arts
Debunked
Humor
Legal Pad
Q&A
Radio Podcast
Secular Events
Video
Writers
Ajita Kamal
Babu Gogineni
Manoj TV
Meera Nanda
Narendra Nayak
Pankaj Kulkarni
Prabhakar Kamath
Siddharth Singh
Sumitra Padmanavan
Tom Clark
Vinod Kumar Wadhawan
nirmukta.com/…/biocentrism-demystifi… 1/32
Categorized | Ajita Kamal, Featured Posts, Naturalism, Pseudoscience, Vinod

Kumar Wadhawan
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and

Robert Lanza’s Notion of a Conscious Universe
Written by Coauthors- Vinod K. Wadhawan, Ajita Kamal, Posted on 14 December
2009
Tags: biocentrism, Chopra, consciousness, Darwin, Deepak, evolution, Lanza,
Quantum, Robert, theory, uncertainty
Like 405 people like this. Be the first of your friends.
Editor’s Note: This article has been cited by P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Steven Novella at
Neurologica, and has been reposted at RichardDawkins.net.
“It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the
universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents
reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the
beginning.”
-Steven Weinberg
“You are here to enable the divine purpose of the universe to unfold. That is how important
you are.”
-Eckhart Tolle
1. Introduction
The impulse to see human life as central to the existence of the universe is manifested in the mystical traditions of
practically all cultures. It is so fundamental to the way pre-scientific people viewed reality that it may be, to a
certain extent, ingrained in the way our psyche has evolved, like the need for meaning and the idea of a
supernatural God. As science and reason dismantle the idea of the centrality of human life in the functioning of the
objective universe, the emotional impulse has been to resort to finer and finer misinterpretations of the science
involved. Mystical thinkers use these misrepresentations of science to paint over the gaps in our scientific
understanding of the universe, belittling, in the process, science and its greatest heroes.
In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward
their idea that the universe is itself a product of our consciousness, and not the other
way around as scientists have been telling us. In essence, these authors are re-inventing idealism, an ancient
philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution. According to the idealists,
the mind creates all of reality. Many ancient Eastern and Western philosophical schools subscribe to this idealistic
notion of the nature of reality. In the modern context, idealism has been supplemented with a brand of quantum
mysticism and relabeled as biocentrism. According to Chopra and Lanza, this idea makes Darwin’s theory of
the biological evolution and diversification of life insignificant. Both these men, although they come from different
backgrounds, have independently expressed these ideas before with some popular success. In the article under
discussion their different styles converge to present a uniquely mystical and bizarre worldview, which we wish to
debunk here.
2. Biocentrism Misinterprets Several Scientifically Testable Truths
The scientific background to the biocentrism idea is described in Robert Lanza’s book Biocentrism: How Life
and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, in which Lanza
proposes that biology and not physics is the key to understanding the universe. Vital to his proposal is the idea
that the universe does not really exist unless it is being observed by a conscious observer. To support this idea,
Lanza makes a series of claims:
(a) Lanza questions the conventional idea that space and time exist as objective properties of the universe. In
doing this, he argues that space and time are products of human consciousness and do not exist outside of the
observer. Indeed, Lanza concludes that everything we perceive is created by the act of perception.
The intent behind this argument is to help consolidate the view that subjective experience is all there is. However,
if you dig into what Lanza says it becomes clear that he is positioning the relativistic nature of reality to make it
seem incongruous with its objective existence. His reasoning relies on a subtle muddling of the concepts of
subjectivity and objectivity. Take, for example, his argument here:
“Consider the color and brightness of everything you see ‘out there.’ On its own, light
doesn’t have any color or brightness at all. The unquestionable reality is that nothing
remotely resembling what you see could be present without your consciousness. Consider the
weather: We step outside and see a blue sky - but the cells in our brain could easily be
changed so we ’see’ red or green instead. We think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical
frog it would feel cold and dry. In any case, you get the point. This logic applies to virtually
everything.“
There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an

experiential truth - that is, it is a descriptive phenomenon that lies outside of objective reality. No physicist will
deny this. However, the physical properties of light that are responsible for color are characteristics of the natural
universe. Therefore, the sensory experience of color is subjective, but the properties of light responsible for that
sensory experience are objectively true. The mind does not create the natural phenomenon itself; it creates a
subjective experience or a representation of the phenomenon.
Similarly, temperature perception may vary from species to species, since it is a subjective experience, but the
property of matter that causes this subjective experience is objectively real; temperature is determined by the
average kinetic energy of the molecules of matter, and there is nothing subjective about that. Give a thermometer
to a human and to an ass: they would both record the same value for the temperature at a chosen spot of
measurement.
The idea that ‘color’ is a fact of the natural universe has been described by G. E. Moore as a naturalistic
fallacy. Also, the idea that color is created by an intelligent creator is a supernaturalistic fallacy. It can be said
that the idea that color is created objectively in the universe by the subjective consciousness of the observer is an
anthropic fallacy. The correct view is that ‘color’ is the subjective sensory perception by the observer of a
certain property of the universe that the observer is a part of.
Time and space receive similar treatment as color and heat in Lanza’s biocentrism. Lanza reaches the conclusion
that time does not exist outside the observer by conflating absolute time (which does not exist) with objective
time (which does). In 2007 Lanza made his argument using an ancient mathematical riddle known as Zeno’s
Arrow paradox. In essence, Zeno’s Arrow paradox involves motion in space-time. Lanza says:
“Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion of time
is really the result of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a smooth
continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as The Arrow, first
described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting logically with the
premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that an arrow is only in one
place during any given instance of its flight. But if it is in only one place, it must be at rest.
The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of its flight. Logically, motion is impossible.
But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this analogy proof that the forward motion of time is
not a feature of the external world but a projection of something within us? Time is not an
absolute reality but an aspect of our consciousness.”
In a more recent article Lanza brings up the implications of special relativity on Zeno’s Arrow paradox. He
writes:
“Consider a film of an archery tournament. An archer shoots an arrow and the camera
follows its trajectory. Suddenly the projector stops on a single frame — you stare at the
image of an arrow in mid-flight. The pause enables you to know the position of the arrow
with great accuracy, but it’s going nowhere; its velocity is no longer known. This is the
fuzziness described by in the uncertainty principle: sharpness in one parameter induces
blurriness in the other. All of this makes perfect sense from a biocentric perspective.
Everything we perceive is actively being reconstructed inside our heads. Time is simply the
summation of the ‘frames’ occurring inside the mind. But change doesn’t mean there is an
actual invisible matrix called “time” in which changes occur. That is just our own way of
making sense of things.”
In the first case Lanza seems to state that motion is logically impossible (which is a pre-relativistic view of the
paradox) and in the next case he mentions that uncertainty is present in the system (a post-relativistic model of
motion). In both cases, however, Lanza’s conclusion is the same - biocentrism is true for time. No matter what
the facts about the nature of time, Lanza concludes that time is not real. His model is unfalsifiable and
therefore cannot be a part of science. What Lanza doesn’t let on is that Einstein’s special-relativity theory
removes the possibility of absolute time, not of time itself. Zeno’s Arrow paradox is resolved by replacing the
idea of absolute time with Einstein’s relativistic coupling of space and time. Space-time has an uncertainty in
quantum mechanics, but it is not nonexistent. The idea of time as a series of sequential events that we perceive
and put together in our heads is an experiential version of time. This is the way we have evolved to perceive
time. This experiential version of time seems absolute, because we evolved to perceive it that way. However, in
reality time is relative. This is a fundamental fact of modern physics. Time does exist outside of the observer, but
allows us only a narrow perception of its true nature.
Space is the other property of the universe that Lanza attempts to describe as purely a product of consciousness.
He says “Wave your hand through the air. If you take everything away, what’s left? The answer is
nothing. So why do we pretend space is a thing”. Again, Einstein’s theory of special relativity provides us with
objective predictions that we can look for, such as the bending of space-time. Such events have been observed
and verified multiple times. Space is a ‘thing’ as far as the objective universe is concerned.
Lanza says “Space and time are simply the mind’s tools for putting everything together.” This is true , but
there is a difference between being the ‘mind’s tools’ and being

created by the mind itself. In the first instance the conscious perception of space and time is an experiential trick
that the mind uses to make sense of the objective universe, and in the other space and time are actual physical
manifestations of the mind. The former is tested and true while the latter is an idealistic notion that is not
supported by science. The experiential conception of space and time is different from objective space and time
that comprise the universe. This difference is similar to how color is different from photon frequency. The former
is subjective while the latter is objective.
Can Lanza deny all the evidence that, whereas we humans emerged on the scene very recently, our Earth and the
solar system and the universe at large have been there all along? What about all the objective evidence that life
forms have emerged and evolved to greater and greater complexity, resulting in the emergence of humans at a
certain stage in the evolutionary history of the Earth? What about all the fossil evidence for how biological and
other forms of complexity have been evolving? How can humans arrogate to themselves the power to create
objective reality?
Much of Lanza’s idealism arises from a distrust/incomprehension of mathematics. He writes:
“In order to account for why space and time were relative to the observer, Einstein assigned
tortuous mathematical properties to an invisible, intangible entity that cannot be seen or
touched. This folly continues with the advent of quantum mechanics.”
Why should the laws of Nature ‘bother’ about whether you can touch something or not? The laws of Nature
have been there long before Lanza appeared on the scene. Since he cannot visualize how the mathematics
describes an objective universe outside of experience, Lanza announces that reality itself does not exist unless
created by the act of observation. Some cheek!
(b) Lanza claims that without an external observer, objects remain in a quantum probabilistic state. He conflates
this observer with consciousness (which he admits to being “subjective experience”). Therefore, he claims,
without consciousness any possible universe will only exist as probabilities. The misunderstanding of quantum
theory that Lanza is promoting is addressed further in the article in the section on quantum theory (Section 4.).
(c) The central argument from Lanza is a hard version of the anthropic principle. Lanza says:
“Why, for instance, are the laws of nature exactly balanced for life to exist? There are over
200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains
credulity to propose that they are random — even if that is exactly what contemporary
physics baldly suggests. These fundamental constants (like the strength of gravity) are not
predicted by any theory — all seem to be carefully chosen, often with great precision, to
allow for existence of life. Tweak any of them and you never existed. “
This reveals a total lack of understanding of what the anthropic principle really says. So let us take a good,
detailed, look at this principle.
3. The Planetary Anthropic Principle
And the beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a
chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give
us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here.
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2007)
The anthropic principle was first enunciated by the mathematician Brandon Carter in 1974. Further elaboration
and consolidation came in 1986 in the form of a book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and
Tipler. There are quite a few versions of the principle doing the rounds. The scientifically acceptable version, also
called the ‘weak’ (or planetary) version, states that: The particular universe in which we find ourselves
possesses the characteristics necessary for our planet to exist and for life, including human life, to
flourish here.
In particle physics and cosmology, we humans have had to introduce ‘best fit’ parameters (fundamental
constants) to explain the universe as we see it. Slightly different values for some of the critical parameters would
have led to entirely different histories of the cosmos. Why do these parameters have the values they have?
According to a differently worded form of the weak version of the anthropic principle stated above: the
parameters and the laws of physics can be taken as fixed; it is simply that we humans have appeared in
the universe to ask such questions at a time when the conditions were just right for our life.
This version suffices to explain quite a few ‘coincidences’ related to the fact that the conditions for our evolution
and existence on the planet Earth happen to be ‘just right’ for that purpose. Life as we know it exists only on
planet Earth. Here is a list of favourable necessary conditions for its existence, courtesy Dawkins (2007):
Availability of liquid water is one of the preconditions for our kind of life. Around a typical star like our
Sun, there is an optimum zone (popularly called the ‘Goldilocks zone’), neither so hot that water would
evaporate, nor so cold that water would freeze, such that planets orbiting in that zone can sustain liquid
water. Our Earth is one such planet.
This optimum orbital zone should be circular or nearly circular. Once again, our Earth fulfils that
requirement. A highly elliptical orbit would take the planet sometimes too close to the Sun, and sometimes
too far, during its cycle. That would result in periods when water either evaporates or freezes. Life needs
liquid water all the time.
The location of the planet Jupiter in our Solar system is such that it acts like a ‘massive gravitational
vacuum cleaner,’ intercepting asteroids that would have been otherwise lethal to our survival.
Planet Earth has a single relatively large Moon, which serves to stabilize its axis of rotation.
Our Sun is not a binary star. Binary stars can have planets, but their orbits can get messed up in all sorts of
ways, entailing unstable or varying conditions, inimical for life to evolve and survive.
Most of the planets of stars in our universe are not in the Goldilocks zones of their parent stars. This is
understandable because, as the above list of favorable conditions shows, the probability for this to happen must
be very low indeed. But howsoever low this probability is, it is not zero: The proof is that life does indeed exist
on Earth.
What we have listed above are just some necessary conditions. They are by no means sufficient conditions as
well. With all the above conditions available on Earth, another highly improbable set of phenomena occurred,
namely the actual origin of life. This origin was a set of highly improbable (but not impossible) set of chemical
events, leading to the emergence of a mechanism for heredity. This mechanism came in the form of emergence
of some kind of genetic molecules like RNA. This was a highly improbable thing to happen, but our existence
implies that such an event, or a sequence of events, did indeed take place. Once life had originated, Darwinian
evolution of complexity through natural selection (which is not a highly improbable set of events) did the rest and
here we are, discussing such questions.
Like the origin of life, another extremely improbable event (or a set of events) was the emergence of the
sophisticated eukaryotic cell (on which the life of we humans is based). We invoke the anthropic principle again
to say that, no matter how improbable such an event was statistically, it did indeed happen; otherwise we humans
would not be here. The occurrence of all such one-off highly improbable events can be explained by the
anthropic principle.
Before we discuss the cosmological or ’strong’ version of the anthropic principle, it is helpful to recapitulate the
basics of quantum theory.
4. Quantum Theory
In conventional quantum mechanics we use wave functions, ψ, to represent quantum states. The wave function
plays a role somewhat similar to that of trajectories in classical mechanics. The Schrödinger equation describes
how the wave function of a quantum system evolves with time. This equation predicts a smooth and deterministic
time-evolution of the wave function, with no discontinuities or randomness. Just as trajectories in classical
mechanics describe the evolution of a system in phase space from one time step to the next, the Schrödinger
equation transforms the wave function at time t 0 (corresponding to a specific point in phase space) to its value
ψ(t) at another time t. The physical interpretation of the wave function is that |ψ|2 is the probability of occurrence
of the state of the system at a given point in phase space.
An elementary particle can exist as a superposition of two or more alternative quantum states. Suppose its energy
can take two values, E1 and E2. Let u1 and u2 denote the
corresponding wave functions. The quantum interpretation is that the system exists in both the states, with u12and
u22 as the respective probabilities. Thus we move from a pure state to a mixture or ensemble of states. What is
more, something striking happens when we humans observe such a system, say an electron, with an instrument.
At the moment of observation, the wave function appears to collapse into only one of the possible alternative
states, the superposition of which was described by the wave function before the event of measurement. That is,
a quantum state becomes decoherent when measured or monitored by the environment. This amounts to the
introduction of a discontinuity in the smooth evolution of the wave function with time.
This apparent collapse of the wave function does not follow from the mathematics of the Schrödinger equation,
and was, in the early stages of the history of quantum mechanics, introduced ‘by hand’ as an additional postulate.
That is, one chose to introduce the interpretation that there is a collapse of the wave function to the state actually
detected by the measurement in the ‘real’ world, to the exclusion of other states represented in the original wave
function. This (unsatisfactory) dualistic interpretation of quantum mechanics for dealing with the measurement
problem was suggested by Bohr and Heisenberg at a conference in Copenhagen in 1927, and is known as the
Copenhagen interpretation.
Another basic notion in standard quantum mechanics is that of time asymmetry. In classical mechanics we make
the reasonable-looking assumption that, once we have formulated the Newtonian (or equivalent) equations of
motion for a system, the future states are determined by the initial conditions. In fact, we can not only calculate
the future conditions from the initial conditions, we can even calculate the initial conditions if the future conditions
or states are known. This is time symmetry. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle destroys the time
symmetry. There can be now a one-to-many relationship between initial and final conditions. Two identical
particles, in identical initial conditions, need not be observed to be in the same final conditions at a later time.
Multiple universes
Hugh Everett, during the mid-1950s, expressed total dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen interpretation: ‘The
Copenhagen Interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori reliance on classical physics … as
well as a philosophic monstrosity with a “reality” concept for the macroscopic world and denial of the same for
the microcosm.’ The Copenhagen interpretation implied that equations of quantum mechanics apply only to the
microscopic world, and cease to be relevant in the macroscopic or ‘real’ world.
Everett offered a new interpretation, which presaged the modern ideas of quantum decoherence. Everett’s ‘many
worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is now taken more seriously, although not entirely in its original
form. He simply let the mathematics of the quantum theory show the way for understanding logically the interface
between the microscopic world and the macroscopic world. He made the observer an integral part of the
system being observed, and introduced a universal wave function that applies comprehensively to the totality
of the system being observed and the observer. This means that even macroscopic objects exist as quantum
superpositions of all allowed quantum states. There is thus no need for the discontinuity of a wave-function
collapse when a measurement is made on the microscopic quantum system in a macroscopic world.
Wave function bifurcation
Everett examined the question: What would things be like if no contributing quantum states to a superposition of
states are banished artificially after seeing the results of an observation? He proved that the wave function of the
observer would then bifurcate at each interaction of the observer with the system being observed. Suppose an
electron can have two possible quantum states A and B, and its wave function is a linear superposition of these
two. The evolution of the composite or universal wave function describing the electron and the observer would
then contain two branches corresponding to each of the states A and B. Each branch has a copy of the observer,
one which sees state A as a result of the measurement, and the other which sees state B. In accordance with the
all-important principle of linear superposition in quantum mechanics, the branches do not influence each other,
and each embarks on a different future (or a different ‘universe’), independent of the other. The copy of the
observer in each universe is oblivious to the existence of other copies of itself and other universes, although the
‘full reality’ is that each possibility has actually happened. This reasoning can be made more abstract and
general by removing the distinction between the observer and the observed, and stating that, at each
interaction among the components of the composite system, the total or universal wave function would bifurcate
as described above, giving rise to multiple universes or many worlds.
A modern and somewhat different version of this interpretation of quantum mechanics introduces the term
quantum decoherence to rationalise how the branches become independent, and how each turns out to
represent our classical or macroscopic reality. Quantum computing is now a reality, and it is based on such
understanding of quantum mechanics.
Parallel histories
Richard Feynman formulated a different version of the many-worlds idea, and spoke in terms of multiple or
parallel histories of the universe (rather than multiple worlds or universes). This work, done after World War II,
fetched him the Nobel Prize in 1965. Feynman, whose path integrals are well known in quantum mechanics,
suggested that, when a particle goes from a point P to a point Q in phase space, it does not have just a single
unique trajectory or history. [It should be noted that, although we normally associate the word 'history' only with
past events, history in the present context can refer to both the past and the future. A history is merely a narrative
of a time sequence of event - past, present, or future.] Feynman proposed that every possible path or trajectory
from P to Q in space-time is a candidate history, with an associated probability. The wave function for every
such trajectory has an amplitude and a phase. The path integral for going from P to Q is obtained as the weighted
vector sum, or integration over all such individual paths or histories. Feynman’s rules for assigning the amplitudes
and phases for computing the sum over histories happen to be such that the effects of all except the one actually
measured for a macroscopic object get cancelled out. For sub-microscopic particles, of course, the cancellation
is far from complete, and there are indeed competing histories or parallel universes.
Quantum Darwinism
A different resolution to the problem of interfacing the microscopic quantum description of reality with
macroscopic classical reality is offered by what has been called ‘quantum Darwinism.’ This formalism does not
require the existence of an observer as a witness of what occurs in the universe. Instead, the environment
is the witness. A selective witness at that, rather like natural selection in Darwin’s theory of evolution. The
environment determines which quantum properties are the fittest to survive (and be observed, for example, by
humans). Many copies of the fitter quantum property get created in the entire environment (’redundancy’). When
humans make a measurement, there is a much greater chance that they would all observe and measure the fittest
solution of the Schrödinger equation, to the exclusion (or near exclusion) of other possible outcomes of the
measurement experiment.
In a computer experiment, Blume-Kohout and Zurek (2007) demonstrated quantum Darwinism

(http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0704.3615) in zero-temperature quantum Brownian motion (QBM). A harmonic
oscillator system (S) is made to evolve in contact with a bath (ε) of harmonic oscillators. The question asked is:
How much information about S can an observer extract from the bath ε? ε consists of subenvironments εi; i = 1,
2, 3, … Each observer has exclusive access to a fragment F consisting of m subenvironments. The so-called
‘mutual information entropy’ is calculated from the quantum mutual information between S and F.
An important result of this approach is that substantial redundancy appears in the QBM model; i.e., multiple
redundant records get made in the environment. As the authors state, this redundancy accounts for the objectivity
and the classicality; the environment is a witness, holding many copies of the evidence. When humans make a
measurement, it is most likely that they would all interact with one of the stable recorded copies, rather than
directly with the actual quantum system, and thus observe and measure the classical value, to the exclusion of
other possible outcomes of the measurement experiments.
Gell-Mann’s coarse-graining interpretation of quantum mechanics
For this interpretation, let us first understand the difference between fine-grained and coarse-grained histories of
the universe. Completely
Murray Gel-Mann
fine-grained histories of the universe are histories that give as complete a description as possible of the entire
universe at every moment of time. Consider a simplified universe in which elementary particles have no attributes
other than positions and momenta, and in which the indistinguishability among particles of a given type is ignored.
Then, one kind of fine-grained history of the simplified universe would be one in which the positions of all the
particles are known at all times. Unlike classical mechanics which is deterministic, quantum mechanics is
probabilistic. One might think that we can write down the probability for each possible fine-grained history. But
this is not so. It turns out that the ‘interference’ terms between fine-grained histories do not usually cancel out,
and we cannot assign probabilities to the fine-grained histories. One has to resort to coarse-graining to be able to
assign probabilities to the histories. Murray Gell-Mann and coworkers applied this approach to a description of
the quantum-mechanical histories of the universe. It was shown that the interference terms get cancelled out on
coarse-graining. Thus we can work directly with wave functions, rather than having to work with wave-function
amplitudes, and then there is no problem interfacing the microscopic description with the macroscopic world of
measurements etc.
Gell-Mann also emphasized the point that the term ‘many worlds or universes’ should be substituted by ‘many
alternative histories of the universe’, with the further proviso that the many histories are not ‘equally real’; rather
they have different probabilities of occurrence.
5. The Cosmological Anthropic Principle
Some quantum cosmologists like to talk about a so-called anthropic principle that requires
conditions in the universe to be compatible with the existence of human beings. A weak form
of the principle states merely that the particular branch history on which we find ourselves
possesses the characteristics necessary for our planet to exist and for life, including human
life, to flourish here. In that form, the anthropic principle is obvious. In its strongest form,
however, such a principle will supposedly apply to the dynamics of the elementary particles
and the initial conditions of the universe, somehow shaping those fundamental laws so as to
produce human beings. That idea seems to me so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion.
Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar
Much confusion and uncalled-for debate has been engendered by the (scientifically unsound) ’strong’ or
cosmological version of the anthropic principle, which is sometimes stated as follows: Since the universe is
compatible with the existence of human beings, the dynamics of the elementary particles and the initial
conditions of the universe must have been such that they shaped the fundamental laws so as to produce
human beings. This is clearly untenable. There are no grounds for the existence of a ‘principle’ like this. A
scientifically untenable principle is no principle at all. No wonder, the Nobel laureate Gell-Mann, as quoted
above, described it as ‘so ridiculous as to merit no further discussion.’
The chemical elements needed for life were forged in stars, and then flung far into space through supernova
explosions. This required a certain amount of time. Therefore the universe cannot be younger than the lifetime of
stars. The universe cannot be too old either, because then all the stars would be ‘dead’. Thus, life can exist only
when the universe has just the age that we humans measure it to be, and has just the physical constants that we
measure them to be.
It has been calculated that if the laws and fundamental constants of our universe had been even slightly different
from what they are, life as we know it would not have been possible. Rees (1999), in the book Just Six
Numbers, listed six fundamental constants which together determine the universe as we see it. Their fine-tuned
mutual values are such that even a slightly different set of these six numbers would have been inimical to our
emergence and existence. Consideration of just one of these constants, namely the strength of the strong
interaction (which determines the binding energies of nuclei), is enough to make the point. It is defined as that
fraction of the mass of an atom of hydrogen which is released as energy when hydrogen atoms fuse to form an
atom of helium. Its value is 0.007, which is just right (give or take a small acceptable range) for any known
chemistry to exist, and no chemistry means no life. Our chemistry is based on reactions among the 90-odd
elements. Hydrogen is the simplest among them, and the first to occur in the periodic table. All the other elements
in our universe got synthesised by fusion of hydrogen atoms. This nuclear fusion depends on the strength of the
strong or nuclear interaction, and also on the ability of a system to overcome the intense Coulomb repulsion
between the fusing nuclei. The creation of intense temperatures is one way of overcoming the Coulomb repulsion.
A small star like our Sun has a temperature high enough for the production of only helium from hydrogen. The
other elements in the periodic table must have been made in the much hotter interiors of stars larger than our Sun.
These big stars may explode as supernovas, sending their contents as stellar dust clouds, which eventually
condense, creating new stars and planets, including our own Earth. That is how our Earth came to have the 90-
odd elements so crucial to the chemistry of our life. The value 0.007 for the strong interaction determined the
upper limit on the mass number of the elements we have here on Earth and elsewhere in our universe. A value of,
say, 0.006, would mean that the universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, making impossible any chemistry
whatsoever. And if it were too large, say 0.008, all the hydrogen would have disappeared by fusing into heavier
elements. No hydrogen would mean no life as we know it; in particular there would be no water without
hydrogen.
Similarly for the other finely-tuned fundamental constants of our universe. Existence of humans has become
possible because the values of the fundamental constants are what they are; had they been different, we would
not exist; that is how the anthropic principle (planetary or cosmological, weak or strong) should be stated. The
weak version is the only valid version of the principle.
But why does the universe have these values for the fundamental constants, and not some other set of values?
Different physicists and cosmologists have tried to answer this question in different ways, and the investigations
go on. One possibility is that there are multiple universes, and we are in one just right for our existence. Another
idea is based on string theory.
6. String Theory and the Anthropic Principle
A ’string’ is a fundamental 1-dimensional object, postulated to replace the concept of structureless elementary
particles. Different vibrational modes of a string give rise to the various elementary particles (including the
graviton). String theory aims to unite quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity, and is thus expected
to be a unified ‘theory of everything.’ When this theory makes sufficient headway, the six fundamental constants
identified by Rees will turn out to be inter-related, and not free to have any arbitrary values. But this still begs the
question asked above: Why this particular set of fundamental constants, and not another? Hawking (1988) asked
an even deeper question: ‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations.
What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of
science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for
the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?’
Our universe is believed to have started at the big bang, shown by Hawking and Penrose in the 1970s to be a
singularity point is space-time (some physicists disagree with the singularity idea). The evidence for this seems to
be that the universe has been expanding (’inflating’) ever since then. It so happens that we have no knowledge of
the set of initial boundary conditions at the moment of the big bang. Moreover, as Hawking and Hertog said in
2006, things could be a little simpler ‘if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the
finite or infinite past.’ Therefore Hawking and coworkers argued that it is not possible to adopt the bottom up
approach to cosmology wherein one starts at the beginning of time, applies the laws of physics, calculates how
the universe would evolve with time, and then just hopes that it would turn out to be something like the universe
we live in. Consequently a top down approach has been advocated by them (remember, this is just a model),
wherein we start with the present and work our way backwards into the past. According to Hawking and Hertog
(2006), there are many possible histories (corresponding to successive unpredictable bifurcations in phase
space), and the universe has lived them all. Not only that, there is also an anthropic angle to this scenario:
As mentioned above, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose had proved that the moment of the big bang was a
singularity, i.e. a point where gravity must have been so strong as to curve space and time in an unimaginably
strong way. Under such extreme conditions our present formulation of general relativity would be inadequate. A
proper quantum theory of gravity is still an elusive proposition. But, as suggested by Hawking and Hertog in
2006, because of the small size of the universe at and just after the big bang, quantum effects must have been
very important. The origin of the universe must have been a quantum event. This statement has several weird-
looking consequences. The basic idea is to incorporate the consequences of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
when considering the evolution of the (very small) early universe, and combine it with Feynman’s sum-over-
histories approach. This means that, starting from configuration A, the early universe could go not only to B, but
also to other configurations B’, B”, etc. (as permitted by the quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle), and one
has to do a sum-over-histories for each of the possibilities AB, AB’, AB”, … And each such branch
corresponds to a different evolution of the universe (with different cosmological and other fundamental
constants), only one or a few of them corresponding to a universe in which we humans could evolve and survive.
This provides a satisfactory answer to the question: ‘why does the universe have these values for the
fundamental constants, and not some other set of values?’.
The statement ‘humans exist in a universe in which their existence is possible’ is practically a tautology. How
can humans exist in a universe which has values of fundamental constants which are not compatible with their
existence?! Stop joking, Dr. Lanza.
The other possible universes (or histories) also exist, each with a specific probability. Our observations of the
world are determining the history that we see. The fact that we are there and making observations assigns to
ourselves a particular history.
Let A denote the beginning of time (if there is any), and B denote now. The state of the universe at point B can
be broadly specified by recognizing the important aspects of the world around us: There are three large
dimensions in space, the geometry of space is almost flat, the universe is expanding, etc. The problem is that we
have no way of specifying point A. So how do we perform the various sums over histories? An interesting point
of the quantum mechanical sums-over-histories theory is that the answers come out right when we work with
imaginary (or complex) time, rather than real time. The work of Hawking and Hertog (2006) has shown that the
imaginary-time approach is crucial for understanding the origin of the universe. When the histories of the universe
are added up in imaginary time, time gets transformed into space. It follows from this work that when the
universe was very small, it had four spatial dimensions, and none for time. In terms of the history of the universe,
it means that there is no point A, and that the universe has no definable starting point or initial boundary
conditions. In this no-boundary scheme of things, we can only start from point B and work our way backwards
(the top-down approach).
This approach also solves the fine-tuning problem of cosmology. Why has the universe a particular inflation
history? Why does the cosmological constant (which determines the rate of inflation) have the value it has? Why
did the early universe have a particular ‘fine-tuned’ initial configuration and a specific (fast) initial rate of inflation?
In the no-boundary scenario there is no need to define an initial state. And there is no need for any fine tuning.
What is more, the very fact of inflation, as against no inflation, follows from the theory as the most probable
scenario.
Artistic Rendition of the Multiverse. Source: Nature
String theory defines a near-infinity of multiple universes. This goes well with the anthropic-principle idea that, out
of the multiple choices for the fundamental constants (including the cosmological constant) for each such universe,
we live in the universe that makes our existence possible. In the language of string theory, there are multiple
‘pocket’ universes that branch off from one another, each branch having a different set of fundamental constants.
Naturally, we are living in one with just the right fundamental constants for our existence.
While many physicists feel uncomfortable with this unconfirmed world view, Hawking and Hertog (2006) have
pointed out that the picture of a never-ending proliferation of pocket universes is meaningful only from the point
of view of an observer outside a universe, and that situation (observer outside a universe) is impossible. This
means that parallel pocket universes can have no effect on an actual observer inside a particular pocket.
Hawking’s work has several other implications as well. For example, in his scheme of things the string theory
‘landscape’ is populated by the set of all possible histories. All possible versions of a universe exist in a state of
quantum superposition. When we humans choose to make a measurement, a subset of histories that share the
specific property measured gets selected. Our version of the history of the universe is determined by that subset
of histories. No wonder the cosmological anthropic principle holds. How can any rational person use the
anthropic principle to justify biocentrism?
Hawking and Hertog’s theory can be tested by experiment, although that is not going to be easy. Its invocation of
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle during the early moments of the universe, and the consequent quantum
fluctuations, leads to a prediction of specific fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and in the early
spectrum of gravitational waves. These predicted fluctuations arise because there is an uncertainty in the exact
shape of the early universe, which is influenced, among other things, by other histories with similar geometries.
Unprecedented precision will be required for testing these predictions. In any case, gravitation waves have not
even been detected yet.
In any case, good scientists are having a serious debate about the correct interpretation of the data available
about life and the universe. While this goes on, non-scientists and charlatans cannot be permitted to twist facts to
satisfy the hunger of humans for the feel-good or feel-important factor. The scientific method is such that
scientists feel good when they are doing good science.
7. Wolfram’s Universe
Stephen Wolfram has emphasized the role of computational irreducibility when it comes to trying to understand
our universe. The notion of probability (as opposed to certainty) is inherent in our worldview if quantum theory is
a valid theory. Wolfram argues that this may not be a correct worldview. He does not rule out the possibility that
there really is just a single, definite, rule for our universe which, in a sense, deterministically specifies how
everything in our universe happens. Things only look probabilistic because of the high degree of complexity
involved, particularly regarding the very structure and connectivity of space and time. It is computational
irreducibility that sometimes makes certain things look incomprehensible or probabilistic, rather than
deterministic. Since we are restricted to doing the computational work within the universe, we cannot expect to
‘outrun’ the universe, and derive knowledge any faster than just by watching what the universe actually does.
Wolfram points out that there is relief from this tyranny of computational irreducibility only in the patches or
islands of computational reducibility. It is in those patches that essentially all of our current physics lies. In natural
science we usually have to be content with making models that are approximations. Of course, we have to try to
make sure that we have managed to capture all the features that are essential for some particular purpose. But
when it comes to finding an ultimate model for the universe, we must find a precise and exact representation of
the universe, with no approximations. This would amount to reducing all physics to mathematics. But even if we
could do that and know the ultimate rule, we are still going to be confronted with the problem of computational
irreducibility. So, at some level, to know what will happen, we just have to watch and see history unfold.
8. The Nature of Consciousness
One criticism of biocentrism comes from the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who says “It looks like an opposite
of a theory, because he doesn’t explain how consciousness happens at all. He’s stopping where the fun
begins.”
The logic behind this criticism is obvious. Without a descriptive explanation for consciousness and how it
‘creates’ the universe, biocentrism is not useful. In essence, Lanza calls for the abandonment of modern
theoretical physics and its replacement with a magical solution. Here are a few questions that one might ask of the
idea:
1. What is this consciousness?

2. Why does this consciousness exist?
3. What is the nature of the interaction between this consciousness and the universe?
4. Is the problem of infinite regression applicable to consciousness itself?
5. Even if Lanza’s interpretation of the anthropic principle is a valid argument against modern theoretical
physics, does the biocentric model of consciousness create a bigger ontological problem than the one it
attempts to solve?
Consider this statement by Lanza:
“Consciousness cannot exist without a living, biological creature to embody its perceptive
powers of creation.“
How can consciousness create the universe if it doesn’t exist? How can the “living, biological creature” exist
if the universe has not been created yet? It becomes apparent that Lanza is muddling the meaning of the word
‘consciousness.’ In one sense he equates it to subjective experience that is tied to a physical brain. In another, he
assigns to consciousness a spatio-temporal logic that exists outside of physical manifestation. In this case, the
above questions become: 1. What is this spatio-temporal logic?; 2. Why does this spatio-temporal logic exist?
and so on…
Daniel Dennett’s criticism of biocentrism centres on Lanza’s non-explanation of the nature of consciousness. In
fact, even from a biological
The Cartesian Theater
perspective Lanza’s conception of consciousness is unclear. For example, he consistently equates consciousness
with subjective experience while stressing its independence from the objective universe (see Lanza’s quote
below). This is an appeal to the widespread but erroneous intuition towards Cartesian Dualism. In this view,
consciousness (subjective experience) belongs to a different plane of reality than the one on which the material
universe is constructed. Lanza requires this general definition of consciousness to construct his theory of
biocentrism. He uses it in the same way that Descartes used it - as a semantic tool to deconstruct reality. In fact,
Lanza’s theory of biocentrism is a sophisticated non-explanation for the ‘brain in a vat’ problem that plagued
philosophers for centuries. However, instead of subscribing to Cartesian Dualism, he attempts a Cartesian
Monism by invoking quantum mechanics. To be exact, his view is Monistic Idealism - the idea that
consciousness is everything- but the Cartesian bias is an essential element in his arguments.
In a dualistic or idealistic context, Lanza’s definition of consciousness as subjective experience may be

acceptable. However, Lanza’s definition is incomplete from a scientific perspective. The truth is that there are
difficulties in analysing consciousness empirically. In scientific terms, consciousness is a ‘hard problem’, meaning
that its complete subjective nature places it beyond direct objective study. Lanza exploits this difficulty to deny
science any understanding of consciousness.
Lanza trivializes the current debate in the scientific community about the nature of consciousness when he says:
“Neuroscientists have developed theories that might help to explain how separate pieces of
information are integrated in the brain and thus succeed in elucidating how different
attributes of a single perceived object-such as the shape, colour, and smell of a flower-are
merged into a coherent whole. These theories reflect some of the important work that is
occurring in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, but they are theories of structure and
function. They tell us nothing about how the performance of these functions is accompanied
by a conscious experience; and yet the difficulty in understanding consciousness lies precisely
here, in this gap in our understanding of how a subjective experience emerges from a
physical process.”
This criticism of the lack of a scientific consensus on the nature of consciousness is empty, considering that Lanza
himself proposes no actual mechanism for consciousness, but still places it at the centre of his theory of the
universe.
There is no need to view consciousness as such a mystery. There are some contemporary models of
consciousness that are quite explanatory, presenting promising avenues for studying how the brain works. Daniel
Dennett’s Multiple Drafts Model is one. According to Dennett, there is nothing mystical about consciousness. It
is an illusion created by tricks in the brain. The biological machinery behind the tricks that create the illusion of
consciousness is the product of successive evolutionary processes, beginning with the development of primitive
physiological reactions to external stimuli. In the context of modern humans, consciousness consists of a highly
dynamic process of information exchange in the brain. Multiple sets of sensory information, memories and
emotional cues are competing with each other at all times in the brain, but at any one instant only one set of these
factors dominates the brain. At the next instant, another set of slightly different factors are dominant. At all
instants, multiple sets of information are competing with each other for dominance. This creates the illusion of a
continuous stream of thoughts and experiences, leading to the intuition that consciousness comprises the entirety
of the voluntary mental function of the individual. There are other materialist models, such as Marvin Minsky’s
view of the brain as an emotional machine, that provide us with ways of approaching the problem from a
scientific perspective without resorting to mysticism.
Consciousness is not something that requires a restructuring of objective reality. It is a subjective illusion on one
level, and the mechanistic outcome of evolutionary processes on another.
“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us ‘universe’, a part limited in time and
space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the
rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.”
Albert Einstein
9. Deepak Chopra Finds an Ally for Hijacking and Distorting Scientific Truths
Deepak Chopra, Lanza’s coauthor in the article, is known for making bold claims about the nature of the
universe. He peddles a form of new-age Hinduism. Chopra’s ideas about a conscious universe are derived from
an interpretation of Vedic teachings. He supplements this new-age Hinduism with ideas from a minority view
among physicists that the Copenhagen Interpretation implies a conscious universe. This view is expounded by
Amit Goswami in his book The Self-Aware Universe. In turn, Goswami and his peers were influenced by Fritjof
Capra’s book The Tao of Physics in which the author attempts to reconcile reductionist science with Eastern
mystical philosophies. Much of modern quantum mysticism in the popular culture can be traced back to Capra.
Chopra’s philosophy is essentially a distillation of Capra’s work combined with a popular marketing strategy to
sell all kinds of pseudoscientific garbage.
Considering Chopra’s reputation in the scientific community for making absurd quack claims about every subject
under the sun, one must wonder about the strange pairing between the two writers. With Lanza’s experience in
biomedical research, he could not possibly be in agreement with Chopra’s brand of holistic healing and quantum
mysticism. Rather, it seems likely that this is an arrangement of convenience. If you look at what drives the two
men, a mutually reinforced disenchantment with Darwin’s ideas emerges as a strong motive behind the pairing.
Both Chopra and Lanza are disillusioned with a certain perceived implication of Darwinian evolution on human
existence - that the meaning of life is inconsequential to the universe. Evolutionary biology upholds the materialist
view of modern science that consciousness is a product of purely inanimate matter assembling in highly complex
states. Such a view is disillusioning to anyone who craves a more central role for the human ego in determining
one’s reality. The view that human life is central to existence is found in most philosophical and religious
traditions. This view is so fundamental to our nature that we can say it is an intuitive reaction to the very condition
of being conscious. It has traditionally been the powerful driving force behind philosophers, poets, priests,
mystics and scholars of history. Darwin dismantled the idea in one clean stroke. Therefore, Darwin became the
enemy. The entire theory of biocentrism is an attempt to ingrain the idea of human destiny into popular science.
The title of Chopra and Lanza’s article is “Evolution Reigns, but Darwin Outmoded”. This may mislead you
to think that the article is about new discoveries in biological evolution. On reading the article, however, it
becomes apparent that the authors are not talking about biological evolution at all. It is relevant to note that not
once in their article do they say how Darwin has been outmoded.
Towards the end of their article, Chopra and Lanza say:
“Darwin’s theory of evolution is an enormous over-simplification. It’s helpful if you want to

connect the dots and understand the interrelatedness of life on the planet — and it’s simple
enough to teach to children between recess and lunch. But it fails to capture the driving force
and what’s really going on.”
There is irony in dismissing the most brilliant and explanatory scientific theory in all of biology as an ‘over-
simplification’, by over-simplifying it as a way to “connect the dots and understand the interrelatedness of
life on the planet”. Contrast this with what Richard Dawkins said: “In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one
of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection.” The
irony of Chopra and Lanza’s statement is compounded by the fact that biocentrism does not address biological
evolution at all! The authors are simply interested in belittling the uncomfortable implications of evolutionary
theory, while not actually saying anything about the theory itself! We can safely assume that Lanza and Chopra
are more concerned with the implications of Darwinian evolution on the nature of the human ego, and not on the
theory of evolution by natural selection.
Interestingly, Chopra has demonstrated his dislike and ignorance of biological evolution multiple times. Here are
some prize quotations from the woo-master himself (skip these if you feel an aneurysm coming):
“To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a
junk yard and produce a jet plane. “
“How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no
“missing link” can fill. The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic molecules turned into
DNA. For billions of years after the Big Bang, no other molecule replicated itself. No other
molecule was remotely as complicated. No other molecule has the capacity to string billions
of pieces of information that remain self-sustaining despite countless transformations into all
the life forms that DNA has produced. “
“If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive
mutations–those that lead to new species–and so few negative ones? Random chance should
produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than positive ones. “
“Evolutionary biology is stuck with regard to simultaneous mutations. One kind of

primordial skin cell, for example, mutated into scales, fur, and feathers. These are hugely
different adaptations, and each is tremendously complex. How could one kind of cell take
three different routs purely at random? “
“If design doesn’t imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent? The human body is
composed of cells that evolved from one-celled blue-green algae, yet that algae is still
around. Why did DNA pursue the path of greater and greater intelligence when it could have
perfectly survived in one-celled plants and animals, as in fact it did? “
“Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need? The helix or spiral shape found
in the shell of the chambered nautilus, the centre of sunflowers, spiral galaxies, and DNA
itself seems to be such a replication. It is mathematically elegant and appears to be a design
that was suited for hundreds of totally unrelated functions in nature. “
“What happens when simple molecules come into contact with life? Oxygen is a simple
molecule in the atmosphere, but once it enters our lungs, it becomes part of the cellular
machinery, and far from wandering about randomly, it precisely joins itself with other simple
molecules, and together they perform cellular tasks, such as protein-building, whose
precision is millions of times greater than anything else seen in nature. If the oxygen doesn’t
change physically–and it doesn’t–what invisible change causes it to acquire intelligence the
instant it contacts life? “
“How can whole systems appear all at once? The leap from reptile to bird is proven by the
fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts. It would seem
that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea, not a simple mutation.
If you look at how a bird is constructed, with hollow bones, toes elongated into wing bones,
feet adapted to clutching branches instead of running, etc., none of the mutations by
themselves give an advantage to survival, but taken altogether, they are a brilliant creative
leap. Nature takes such leaps all the time, and our attempt to reduce them to bits of a jigsaw
puzzle that just happened to fall into place to form a beautifully designed picture seems
faulty on the face of it. Why do we insist that we are allowed to have brilliant ideas while
Nature isn’t? “
“Darwin’s iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed out
that “survival of the fittest” is a tautology. Some mutations survive, and therefore we call
them fittest. Yet there is no obvious reason why the dodo, kiwi, and other flightless birds are
more fit; they just survived for a while. DNA itself isn’t fit at all; unlike a molecule of iron or
hydrogen, DNA will blow away into dust if left outside on a sunny day or if attacked by
pathogens, x-rays, solar radiation, and mutations like cancer. The key to survival is more
than fighting to see which organism is fittest. “
“Competition itself is suspect, for we see just as many examples in Nature of cooperation.
Bees cooperate, obviously, to the point that when a honey bee stings an enemy, it acts to
save the whole hive. At the moment of stinging, a honeybee dies. In what way is this a
survival mechanism, given that the bee doesn’t survive at all? For that matter, since a
mutation can only survive by breeding–”survival” is basically a simplified term for passing
along gene mutations from one generation to the next-how did bees develop drones in the
hive, that is, bees who cannot and never do have sex? “
“How did symbiotic cooperation develop? Certain flowers, for example, require exactly one
kind of insect to pollinate them. A flower might have a very deep calyx, or throat, for
example than only an insect with a tremendously long tongue can reach. Both these
adaptations are very complex, and they serve no outside use. Nature was getting along very
well without this symbiosis, as evident in the thousands of flowers and insects that persist
without it. So how did numerous generations pass this symbiosis along if it is so specialized?
“
“Finally, why are life forms beautiful? Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves no
obvious purpose. Once a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous plumage, we
can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesn’t it also attract predators, for we
simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon survive by not being
conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by the same logic. This is no
logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for millions of years, so have gorgeous
ones. The notion that this is random seems weak on the face of it. “
Now comes the kicker. All these quotes that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of biology, let alone
the theory of evolution by natural selection, are from one single article as compiled by P. Z. Myers in his blog
post in 2005. Since then, Chopra has continued to spout his ignorance of evolution over and over.
Chopra’s brand of mysticism gets its claimed legitimacy from science and its virulence from discrediting science’s
core principles. He continues this practice through his association with Robert Lanza. Both Chopra and Lanza
seem to be disillusioned by the perceived emptiness of a non-directional evolutionary reality. Chopra has invested
much time and effort in promoting the idea that consciousness in a property of the universe itself. He finds in
Lanza a keen mind with an inclination towards a similar dislike for a perceived lack of anthropocentric meaning in
the nature of biological life as described by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
10. Conclusions
Let us recapitulate the main points:
(a) Space and time exist, even though they are relative and not absolute.
(b) Modern quantum theory, long after the now-discredited Copenhagen interpretation, is consistent with the
idea of an objective universe that exists without a conscious observer.
(c) Lanza and Chopra misunderstand and misuse the anthropic principle.
(d) The biocentrism approach does not provide any new information about the nature of consciousness, and
relies on ignoring recent advances in understanding consciousness from a scientific perspective.
(e) Both authors show thinly-veiled disdain for Darwin, while not actually addressing his science in the article.
Chopra has demonstrated his utter ignorance of evolution multiple times.
Modern physics is a vast and multi-layered web that stretches over the entire deck of cards. All other natural
sciences - all truths that exist in the material world- are interrelated, held together by the mathematical reality of
physics. Fundamental theories in physics are supported by multiple lines of evidence from many different scientific
disciplines, developed and tested over decades. Clearly, those who propose new theories that purport to
redefine fundamental assumptions or paradigms in physics have their work cut out for them. Our contention is
that the theory of biocentrism, if analysed properly, does not hold up to scrutiny. It is not the paradigm change
that it claims to be. It is also our view that one can find much meaning, beauty and purpose in a naturalistic view
of the universe, without having to resort to mystical notions of reality.
Dr. Vinod Kumar Wadhawan is a Raja Ramanna Fellow at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and an
Associate Editor of the journal PHASE TRANSITIONS.
Like 405 people like this. Be the first of your friends.
Share This Article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new
web pages.
Related posts:
1. Deepak Chopra: A New Age Shaman (Watch Video)

2. Deepak Chopra And His New-Age Claptrap
3. Are You A Freethinker? Naturalism, Life and Meaning in a Causal Universe
4. Victor Stenger on The Future of Naturalism
5. COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 7. Cosmic Evolution of Complexity
6. COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 6. Emergence of Complexity in Far-from-Equilibrium Systems
7. Darwin’s Triumph
8. Philosophy With Selvi - What Is Knowledge? (Epistemology For Beginners)
9. COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 17. Epilogue
10. COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 13. Evolution of Biological Complexity
11. Sacred Reason: Reconciling Science and Emotion
12. Nirmukta Exclusive: Interview with Daniel Dennett.
13. Naturalism: Scientific, Philosophical and Socio-Political.
This post was written by:
Coauthors- - who has written 2 posts on Nirmukta.
Contact the author
« Am I a Hindu?
The Upanishads Attempt To Reform Brahmanism »
224 Responses to “Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to

Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza’s Notion of a Conscious
Universe”
1. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi says:

November 22, 2010 at 11:19 am
Radhasoami Faith View of Modus Operandi of Creation of Universe
Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch
paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of
gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not
necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.
Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of
divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role
of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe.
Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His
Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution
has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book:
Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of
spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is
called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine
Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a
current emerged with a powerful sound. It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various
shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman
or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and
strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.
These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black
holes, galaxies etc. were born.
I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and
electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat
Lok and region below to it only.
Reply
Lije says:
I prefer a creation theory that is more inline with this.
Reply
Joe Isuzu says:

November 22, 2010 at 2:04 pm
One of the amazing results of Darwin’s concept of evolution is that he was able to observe
the results of evolution and postulate the process before there was the technology to confirm
it, such as the existence DNA or chromosomes, a remarkable feat of intellect, no divining
needed. As a species we also seem to have evolved the ability to have an internal dialogue
which is our mechanism to plan for the future, and if an organism can plan for the future, it
lives with expectation and often, in humans, this may be come in the form of hope. Most
world views are based upon the hope to extend one’s existence into some future existence.
Any challenge to that future existence is a threat to the world view belief system and as a
species we have found that it’s easier to survive in groups of like mindedness than not.
Darwin new this and was not published until his death. It took 300 years for the church to
officially pardon Galileo even after he was proven correct. Modernity, in most cases, has at
least hobbled official retributions to the advancement of mankind’s world view through
science. But individuals live with and need hope, and if your world view is based upon a
metaphor, you will be living a dualistic life with one foot firmly based in daily life, and the
other floating away not confined by the laws of nature. There is just as much majesty and
beauty in the strong nuclear force, or natural selection as there is a big blue elephant.
Here in the US we are a puritanical nation, but we were fortunate to have a document which
supersedes divine right. We struggle to keep it that way in the face of those who wish to ride
a dinosaur to the Congress.
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
Evolution and the Divine aren’t necessary contradictory. De Chardin or Ken Wilber
(to name a few) explain with eloquence how Evolution is the mode par excellence by
which the Divine manifests itself on a material level. And because our true nature is
made of that divine stuff, it is possible for us to see that by our self…
We are now at a stage of Evolution where the increase of self awareness reached a
point where the process of Evolution itself is gonna be more and more a matter of self
awareness.
You can look at Evolution as a way for consciousness to know itself. Patiently,
consciousness settled the geosphere that led to the biosphere that finally led to what
De Chardin called the noosphere (noos = mind in ancient greek).
The noosphere is quite young compare to the other phases but we could say that it
began to be engaged in its exponential part of its curve because of the power of the
technology it now is able to produce…
Of course, materialists can’t give any credit to that interpretation of Evolution, even if it
has the advantage to give meaning to meaning and conciliate science and the divine.
But we have to realize that nothing, philosophically or scientifically speaking, can refute
that
interpretation. It is truly a matter of belief.
So I’ll go with Evolution and I’ll choose what I find useful…
Reply
2. Anand says:
“This apparent collapse of the wave function does not follow from the mathematics of the Schrödinger
equation, and was, in the early stages of the history of quantum mechanics, introduced ‘by hand’ as an
additional postulate. That is, one chose to introduce the interpretation that there is a collapse of the wave
function to the state actually detected by the measurement in the ‘real’ world, to the exclusion of other
states represented in the original wave function. This (unsatisfactory) dualistic interpretation of quantum
mechanics for dealing with the measurement problem was suggested by Bohr and Heisenberg at a
conference in Copenhagen in 1927, and is known as the Copenhagen interpretation.”
………………………………………………………..
What about the interference patterns of a wave that are observed when an observer does not observe the
electron or photon???
an interference pattern of a wave is formed when the observer does not observe and does not have
knowledge of the location of the wave..
but when the observer observes the wave and is aware of the position an interference pattern of a particle
is formed it is observable proof of the breakdown of the wave function this is not something that exists in
our mind the interference patterns are observable.. only a conscious observer can collapse the wave into a
particle a stone in the place of the observer cannot collapse the wave ????
Reply
Vinod Wadhawan says:

Your question on interference patterns is answered in great detail by Hawking in his recent great
book THE GRAND DESIGN. The answer lies in summing over all possible Feynman histories.
The important point is that there is no need to introduce one more postulate, in contrast to the
Copenhagen interpretation.
Every educated person MUST read this book by Hawking. It is very low-priced too.
For me it is a matter of great personal satisfaction that our article on biocentrism, which appeared
long before Hawking’s book, described almost all the key ingredients of the modern scientific
understanding of the big questions about our universe, except M-theory. In particular, Feynman’s
genius has been given due place in the history of human thought.
Reply
Anand says:
Hawking huh in his first book he stretched the possibility of god now he says that gravity can
manifest matter?? I hold his collegue Roger penrose in high regard not hawking check out
Penroses orchestrated objective reduction theory both equally credible one accepts
consciousness the other one is confused only consciousness can accurately predict the wave
breakdown function even in the delayed choice quantum erazer consciousness connects the
dots perfectly no other explanation seems to make sense of this phenomenon.
Lets weigh hawkings proposal that gravity can manifest matter Hawking believes a source of
infinite gravity Black holes were possibly the source of creation refer to hawking radiation to
understand how particles can escape this force but he doesn’t seem to tell us how this matter
manifested..
now the question comes forth how is gravity created if you see a black hole is created when
a star has too little fuel left to maintain its temperature the current gravitational force exerted
by the star is not sufficient so it implodes the gravitational force doesn’t go away it becomes
a black hole this is a documented phenomenon so if u observe a forming star there is no
gravity before the star is formed only stellar dust and dense parts of molecular clouds in very
large quantities interact with each other and fuse to form plasma this creates magnetic fields
which influences other molecules to combine over a very long period of time u got a star with
a gravitational field.
So as you have seen from matter magnetic fields and gravitational fields are formed gravity
cannot form independent of particulate matter this is as per our current observations so what
came before gravity matter before particulate matter?? in quantum mechanics every particle
is a probability wave until it is collapsed what is a probability wave ?? pulsating vibrations,,
so what collapses the probability wave???? Is it Consciousness??like the Vedas tell us
vibration is the root of creation from vibration comes matter??? Tachyons have been a
candidate for entanglement but have no provable evidence for the same exists and quantum
physicists have refuted their existence the possibility of a faster than light instant information
transfer medium is invalidated by quantum physicists to be tachyons Eugene Wigner, Max
planck, Wernier Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Roger penrose and many more notable theoretical
and quantum physicists all of these people suggest that it is most probably consciousness all
of these individuals are the fathers of modern day quantum mechanics and you want me to
trust Hawking whose only notable contribution to quantum mechanics is an incomplete
integrated theory of quantum gravity which has been questioned by close to 12 alternate
theories???and these scientists are no less credible than Richard Feynman.
Could it be like the Upanishads tell us consciousness is the only reality be something
meaningful or equivalent to Stephen hawking who states that if there is gravity matter can
manifest itself from nothing??
Reply
Satish Chandra says:

I’d appreciate it if you could post your response again with better punctuation. It is
quite difficult to follow as it is now.
I’d wait for someone more knowledgeable in physics to answer your questions, but I
have one point to make. Nobody is asking to you accept what Hawking says just
because he said so. Evidence is what matters. Blindly following a figure of authority is
the domain of religion. The domain of science is questioning everything.
So if there is evidence that consciousness does indeed generate reality, we’d gladly
accept it. But in the absence of that, jumping to such a conclusion just because
authority figures (especially the Upanishads which fail abysmally in modelling nature)
had said so is foolish.
Reply
3. Doug says:
September 11, 2010 at 8:45 pm
This was a weak refute and this comment shows the real issue here and worldview of the authors: “Both
authors show thinly-veiled disdain for Darwin”
Reply
4. astrobalaji says:
August 19, 2010 at 9:34 am
Hi,
There is one more person who used to say that universe had a consciousness… Its Vedathri… And he
also tries to BLABBER physics into it (I write blabber in caps because the thing he spoke has nothing
convincing in physics)… Its strange that the govt. releases a stamp for him but not for an Indian who has a
space telescope in his name…
Reply
5. dalas v says:
August 15, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Thanks so much for this article. As a non-academic layman, it’s often tempting to throw my arms up and
just listen to the mystics. It’s articles like this that help us to stay on the path of reason.
Reply
6. Mark Maloney says:

August 8, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Dear wonderers,
My name is Mark Maloney. I am writing to invite you to visit my website Epluribusunum56.com. This
website has eight subject synopses:
1 – The origin of the “Universe.”

2 – The nature of “Light and Colors.”
3 – The nature of “Time.”
4 – The nature of “Dreams.”
5 – The nature of “Human Behavior.”
6 – The nature of “Technological Discovery.”
7 – The nature of “Morals.”
8 – The nature of “Religion.”
Epluribusunum56.com is a high-end interactive website; it has a posting board that allows you to use
whatever materials you wish to compose your response, i.e. text, illustrations, pictures, animations,
PowerPoint presentations, and video, to clearly make your point. In addition, it has a live video
conferencing platform where you can directly interact in real time face to face discussion with others; in
any one of the eight subject synopses.
The primary subject of this website is to introduce and teach entirely new physics and cosmology;
discussed in the synapse “The origin of the Universe;” as a prelude to “DSFF (Dimensional Symmetry
Field Formations,)” which are the complete mechanics composing every aspect of both the physical and
material universe in absolute extreme detail. The other seven synapses deal with cognition.
This website is a place where you can teach the world… or a place where you can learn new
conceptualizations.
Knowledge grows best – when fertile minds are not at rest. Bring your intelligence when you visit.
Sincerely, Mark Maloney
This website has no, spammers, porners, advertising, or soliciting; it is strictly a clean discussion forum. It
is absolutely free.
Reply
7. Mr. Universe says:

August 4, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Don’t think I’m conscious? Just watch me flex my Andromeda biceps and slap you all silly (might take a
few billion years)
Reply
8. Wadhawan says:
July 19, 2010 at 12:53 am
Regarding Hawking, I quote from our article:
‘It so happens that we have no knowledge of the set of initial boundary conditions at the moment of the
big bang. Moreover, as Hawking and Hertog said in 2006, things could be a little simpler ‘if one knew that
the universe was set going in a particular way in either the finite or infinite past.’ Therefore Hawking and
coworkers argued that it is not possible to adopt the bottom up approach to cosmology wherein one starts
at the beginning of time, applies the laws of physics, calculates how the universe would evolve with time,
and then just hopes that it would turn out to be something like the universe we live in. Consequently a top
down approach has been advocated by them (remember, this is just a model), wherein we start with the
present and work our way backwards into the past. According to Hawking and Hertog (2006), there are
many possible histories (corresponding to successive unpredictable bifurcations in phase space), and the
universe has lived them all. Not only that, there is also an anthropic angle to this scenario:
As mentioned above, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose had proved that the moment of the big bang
was a singularity, i.e. a point where gravity must have been so strong as to curve space and time in an
unimaginably strong way. Under such extreme conditions our present formulation of general relativity
would be inadequate. A proper quantum theory of gravity is still an elusive proposition. But, as suggested
by Hawking and Hertog in 2006, because of the small size of the universe at and just after the big bang,
quantum effects must have been very important. The origin of the universe must have been a quantum
event. This statement has several weird-looking consequences. The basic idea is to incorporate the
consequences of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle when considering the evolution of the (very small)
early universe, and combine it with Feynman’s sum-over-histories approach. This means that, starting from
configuration A, the early universe could go not only to B, but also to other configurations B’, B”, etc. (as
permitted by the quantum-mechanical uncertainty principle), and one has to do a sum-over-histories for
each of the possibilities AB, AB’, AB”, … And each such branch corresponds to a different evolution of
the universe (with different cosmological and other fundamental constants), only one or a few of them
corresponding to a universe in which we humans could evolve and survive. This provides a satisfactory
answer to the question: ‘why does the universe have these values for the fundamental constants, and not
some other set of values?’
The statement ‘humans exist in a universe in which their existence is possible’ is practically a tautology.
How can humans exist in a universe which has values of fundamental constants which are not compatible
with their existence?! Stop joking, Dr. Lanza.
The other possible universes (or histories) also exist, each with a specific probability. Our observations of
the world are determining the history THAT WE SEE. THE FACT THAT WE ARE THERE AND
MAKING OBSERVATIONS ASSIGNS TO OURSELVES A PARTICULAR HISTORY.
Let A denote the beginning of time (if there is any), and B denote now. The state of the universe at point B
can be broadly specified by recognising the important aspects of the world around us: There are three
large dimensions in space, the geometry of space is almost flat, the universe is expanding, etc. The
problem is that we have no way of specifying point A. So how do we perform the various sums over
histories? An interesting point of the quantum mechanical sums-over-histories theory is that the answers
come out right when we work with imaginary (or complex) time, rather than real time. The work of
Hawking and Hertog (2006) has shown that the imaginary-time approach is crucial for understanding the
origin of the universe. When the histories of the universe are added up in imaginary time, time gets
transformed into space. It follows from this work that when the universe was very small, it had four spatial
dimensions, and none for time. In terms of the history of the universe, it means that there is no point A, and
that the universe has no definable starting point or initial boundary conditions. In this no-boundary scheme
of things, we can only start from point B and work our way backwards (the top-down approach).
This approach also solves the fine-tuning problem of cosmology. Why has the universe a particular
inflation history? Why does the cosmological constant (which determines the rate of inflation) have the
value it has? Why did the early universe have a particular ‘fine-tuned’ initial configuration and a specific
(fast) initial rate of inflation? In the no-boundary scenario there is no need to define an initial state. And
there is no need for any fine tuning. What is more, the very fact of inflation, as against no inflation, follows
from the theory as the most probable scenario.
String theory defines a near-infinity of multiple universes. This goes well with the anthropic-principle idea
that, out of the multiple choices for the fundamental constants (including the cosmological constant) for
each such universe, we live in the universe that makes our existence possible. In the language of string
theory, there are multiple ‘pocket’ universes that branch off from one another, each branch having a
different set of fundamental constants. Naturally, we are living in one with just the right fundamental
constants for our existence.
While many physicists feel uncomfortable with this unconfirmed world view, Hawking and Hertog (2006)
have pointed out that the picture of a never-ending proliferation of pocket universes is meaningful only
from the point of view of an observer outside a universe, and that situation (observer outside a universe) is
impossible. THIS MEANS THAT PARALLEL POCKET UNIVERSES CAN HAVE NO EFFECT
ON AN ACTUAL OBSERVER INSIDE A PARTICULAR POCKET.
Hawking’s work has several other implications as well. For example, in his scheme of things the string
theory ‘landscape’ is populated by the set of all possible histories. All possible versions of a universe exist
in a state of quantum superposition. When we humans choose to make a measurement, a subset of
histories that share the specific property measured gets selected. OUR VERSION OF THE HISTORY
OF THE UNIVERSE IS DETERMINED BY THAT SUBSET OF HISTORIES.’
Te last sentence says it all, and should help dispel any attempts to misinterpret Hawking.
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
July 20, 2010 at 12:56 am
Thank you Mr. Wadhawan for your explanations. I don’t get everything but it helped. But that
doesn’t make me change my mystic approach about the universe. Mysticism doesn’t deny that
Consciousness is subjected to the laws of nature, no matter how we can theorize about them. I
don’t think either that a definitive answer can be found because the answers we find are linked with
the observations we can make and the time we live in. The boundaries are always pushed further by
the new discoveries which makes constantly appear a new unknown that in return will redefine our
understanding of the universe…
Because consciousness has no boundaries and has an extreme plasticity, new theories can only
constantly appear. I am not saying that our material universe cannot end, but Consciousness can’t
since it is uncreated… But no instrument is able to see that. Only you by yourself can experience it.
Now, I’m no scientist so I’d like to ask you a question: Can the Godel’s theorem of incompleteness
be applied to Consciousness? In other words, isn’t impossible for Consciousness to valid itself, no
matter the material evidence we think we have?
Reply
Wadhawan says:
July 20, 2010 at 1:28 am
The debate on consciousness is not likely to end anytime soon!
Regarding the question you asked about Gödel’s theorem, a long answer is given by Douglas
Hofstadter in his book ‘Gödel, Escher, Bach.’ It is an old book, and Hofstadter has written
more on that theme, but I have not been in touch with that. He tends to give a confusing
answer to this question. This is not surprising, because nobody can have a clear answer
about something which we do not even define properly and uniquely.
I am inclined to agree with Marvin Minsky’s approach, which I have already described in my
article on consciousness. To investigate anything properly, you have to begin by posing a
question properly. And that means that every word in the question must have a clear,
unambiguous meaning. Human language is not always good for that, so one tries to pose the
question in a mathematical language. This is explained in Hofstadter’s book.
Self-referential systems are likely to remain an enigma for quite some time. Let us keep an
open mind, and avoid making unfalsifiable statements in the meanwhile. Minsky describes
consciousness as a ‘suitcase word’, and I agree with him.
I also believe that consciousness is an EMERGENT property, arising because of the

relentless evolution of complexity. This evolution of complexity first resulted in the emergence
of life out of nonlife and then, in due course, consciousness. I have put together this narrative
in my just-released book ‘COMPLEXITY SCIENCE: Tackling the Difficult Questions We
Ask about Ourselves and about Our Universe’,
LAP Lambert Academic Publishing Co., Saarbrücken (2010). ISBN 9783838377544.
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
July 20, 2010 at 2:06 am
Thanks again.
As you said, human language poses some problems. I would say that this is because
language shapes our way to think on a dual mode where things can only be reasoned
through opposites. The problem with that is that “reality” isn’t like that. What we call
“unfalsiable statements” may be unfalsiable only because of language, not reality.
In a non-dual state of mind, language is bypassed, and so are our dual perceptions.
You’ll understand that if this is possible, words cannot talk about that, words being
dual objects and what is dual cannot talk about what is not dual…
So of course this is also an unfalsiable statement, but as far as I know, reality isn’t
bothered by that…
Reply
9. Joe Isuzu says:

July 17, 2010 at 5:07 am
To Be-Bop-A-Lula
“The Long and Embarrassing List of The Spooky Scientists”
Is that the title of your essay or do you dot your i’s with heart shapes.
The review (and it is a review,not an examination of text in context) of the Hawking co-authorship begins
with:
“When and how did the universe begin? Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing?
What is the nature of reality? Why are the laws of nature so finely tuned as to allow for the existence of
beings like ourselves? And, finally, is the apparent “grand design” of our universe EVIDENCE OF A
BENEVOLENT CREATOR who set things in motion—OR DOES SCIENCE OFFER ANOTHER
EXPLANATION? (See, I can do it too, heart heart heart)
You answered the question posed to you twice to please give an explanation of consciousness with “it
doesn’t fit with your assumptions” which was in turn responded to by “Not only does this line of thought
not provide any useful information, it also blatantly refuses to indulge in the pursuit of knowledge. What a
wonderfully asinine idea.” Something I agree with.
Richard Conn Henry is a controversial non-materialist and has many contradictors even within his own
statements:
“We have no idea what this mental nature implies, but — the great thing is — it is true.”
Huh? okay, I guess I’ll just have to take his word on that since it’s unfalsifiable.
“Historically, we have looked to our religious leaders to understand the meaning of our lives; the nature of
our world. With Galileo Galilei, this changed. In establishing that the Earth goes around the Sun, Galileo
not only succeeded in believing the unbelievable himself, but also convinced almost everyone else to do the
same.”
Yes it change, but it took modernity and reason to hobble what was accepted as “truth” based on
scripture.
It also took 377 years before Galileo was pardoned. Henry continues:
“This was a stunning accomplishment in ‘physics outreach’ and, with the subsequent work of Isaac
Newton, physics joined religion in seeking to explain our place in the Universe.”
There’s a leap of cognitive bias! Is this before or after Newton turned lead in gold? Sounds a lot like
Lanza. Who sounds a lot like Chopra. Who sounds a lot like a character from the Hobbit.
Here’s one of your own:
” That just can’t be measured. It is truly a technical issue…”
I’ll take the scientific method over gibberish.
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
July 20, 2010 at 12:26 am
We are in 2010 and the scientific method isn’t able yet to find a single ounce of consciousness…
Do you at least agree that there is a problem with defining and explaining consciousness, even
among materialist scientists. I am not inventing that… It is funny that put together the words “non-
materialist” and “controversial”. Aren’t those synonyms?
I love science and I have no problem with the scientific method, except when it comes to know
who we are. I don’t think science alone cannot answer that.
You don’t want yo consider that consciousness may be uncreated. But it is not that spooky when
you calmly think about it… If you go this way, you could find rational reasons why your “I” thinks
like it thinks and cannot figure things outside his dual, discontinuous, mode of perception…
Anyway, it is a fact that more and more physicists and scientists are considering the option of an
uncreated Consciousness. But because it goes against the common sense, what we learn at school
and our everyday perceptions, the idea just seems too odd.
But that wouldn’t the first time in History that a revolutionary concept would become a new truth.
That will be later challenged by its own paradox. That is how things work in Dualistan…
Reply
Joe Isuzu says:

July 20, 2010 at 12:58 am
“Do you at least agree that there is a problem with defining and explaining consciousness,
even among materialist scientists.”
I don’t have a problem with there not being a feasible explanation. I do have a problem with
those who would fill the void with an unfalsifiable explanation.
I’m not sure in what sense you mean “uncreated”. Maybe because it’s in Dualistanese and
I’m from Determineslam.
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
July 20, 2010 at 1:45 am
You should find a way to escape Determineslam, which is btw a province of Dualistan
This place can only condemn you to dual understanding/perceptions.
In Dualistan, you can only see/feel/think in discontinuity, on a dual mode where

everything seems to begin and finish. This is why a word like “uncreated” hardly
makes sense. How can something be outside time by having no beginning so no end
when everything, every sensation, every thought around is just a succession of
beginnings and ends?
But escaping Dualistan is not an easy thing to do. Specially if you don’t care about the
other places, or that you don’t believe there are other places. But by thinking like this,
you miss the opportunity to see for yourself that what seems unfalsifiable here only
looks like that because we can’t see it right…
Reply
Joe Isuzu says:

July 20, 2010 at 1:55 am
Spoken like a prophet. You are mistaken about determinism and have it
mistaken with fatalism.
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
July 20, 2010 at 2:17 am
Determinism is the philosophical view that every event, including human

cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is causally determined by
previous events. Determinism proposes there is a predetermined
unbroken chain of prior occurrences back to the origin of the universe.
-Wiki
I won’t start with that now (it is 2 am here) but in a few words, to be
able to remain permanently in a non-dual state means that you broke the
chain reaction of causes and effects. You are in a constant Now where
there is no doer anymore, just awareness in the Now. But words can’t
talk about that since they are dual objects and what is dual cannot talk
about the non-dual…
Reply
Joe Isuzu says:

July 20, 2010 at 2:35 am
Once again a partial explanation;

Determinism is the philosophical view that every event, including
human cognition, behaviour, decision, and action, is causally
determined by previous events. Determinism proposes there is a
predetermined unbroken chain of prior occurrences back to the
origin of the universe.
Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws
resulting in only one possible state at any point in time. With
numerous historical debates, many varieties and philosophical
positions on the subject of determinism exist, most prominently the
free will debates involving compatibilism and incompatibilism.
Determinism should not be confused with determination of human

actions by reasons, motives, and desires, or with predestination,
which specifically factors the existence of God into its tenets.
Wiki
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
July 20, 2010 at 2:51 am
I don’t see what I didn’t copy changes something to

determinism.
The point was to show how and why non-dualism

addresses determinism. I left aside the last part because
what I’m explaining doesn’t need the existence of God into
its tenet.
That Consciousness is uncreated may be just a natural

phenomenon… that has extraordinary implications from our
relative partial limited dual perspective only…
Reply
Joe Isuzu says:

July 20, 2010 at 11:17 am
Dr. Wadhawan put it succinctly when he stated that

it is very important when communicating ideas to
understand the definitions of the words we use. The
first half of the definition from Wiki, if you stop there,
makes it read like fatalism, which it is not. But I
understand your point (up to a point) and have
enjoyed our banter.
Reply
Be-Bop-A-Lula says:
July 20, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Thanks for the precision. It was nice

exchanging with you.
10. rkk says:

July 16, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Dear Dr. Wadhawan,
If you read my different posts, I have independently said what Wolfram’s view says (more coherently)
quoted from your article below.
I have posed a question ” is mathematical model a necessity for the observations to be true reflection of
bigger reality?”
The computational irreducibility, as Wolfram points out, can make reality look incomprehensible.
Computational physics experience is vital in coming to this kind of understanding of nature of things. Or
should we call it ‘nature of nature’.
[ [ Wolfram’s Universe
Stephen Wolfram has emphasized the role of computational irreducibility when it comes to trying to
understand our universe. The notion of probability (as opposed to certainty) is inherent in our worldview if
quantum theory is a valid theory. Wolfram argues that this may not be a correct worldview. He does not
rule out the possibility that there really is just a single, definite, rule for our universe which, in a sense,
deterministically specifies how everything in our universe happens. Things only look probabilistic because
of the high degree of complexity involved, particularly regarding the very structure and connectivity of
space and time. It is computational irreducibility that sometimes makes certain things look
incomprehensible or probabilistic, rather than deterministic. Since we are restricted to doing the
computational work within the universe, we cannot expect to ‘outrun’ the universe, and derive knowledge
any faster than just by watching what the universe actually does.
Wolfram points out that there is relief from this tyranny of computational irreducibility only in the patches
or islands of computational reducibility. It is in those patches that essentially all of our current physics lies.
In natural science we usually have to be content with making models that are approximations. Of course,
we have to try to make sure that we have managed to capture all the features that are essential for some
particular purpose. But when it comes to finding an ultimate model for the universe, we must find a precise
and exact representation of the universe, with no approximations. This would amount to reducing all
physics to mathematics. But even if we could do that and know the ultimate rule, we are still going to be
confronted with the problem of computational irreducibility. So, at some level, to know what will happen,
we just have to watch and see history unfold. ] ]
Reply
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
« Older Comments
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
By posting your comment you are agreeing to comply with our commenting guidelines
Submit Comment
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Popular
Featured
Comments
Tags
Subscribe
Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to
Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza's
Notion of a Conscious Universe
Is 'Hindu Atheism' Valid? A Rationalist
Critique Of The 'Hindu' Identity's
Usurpation Of Indian Culture
OurHow AshokaPhotos
Flickr The Great Gave- See Brahmins A
all photos
Song With Which They Conquered India
Reincarnation, Rebirth And Past-Life
Regression Therapy In India: A Rationalist
Critique
Review: The God Market- How
Globalization
Seven Samurai Is Of
Making India Nastik
The Great More Hindu,
By Meera
Revolt Nanda
Beyond
Slideshow:Bodily Needs: Prahlad
Celebrating Everybody JaniBake
& The
Solarian Scam
Jesus Day Around The World
Everybody
Pseudoscience Bake InJesus Day -An
The Stars: Facebook
Indian
Event
Rationalist’s Experiences with Astrology
Exposing
God’s Own TheStockholm
"Miracle" Syndrome
Of Blindfolded
Sight- The Story of Ranjana
Yogi In Politics: A Rationalist’s Agarwal
Thoughts
Yogi In Politics:
On Baba Ramdev A Rationalist's Thoughts
On
WillBaba Ramdev
Astrologer Bhaskar Shetty Keep His
Astrologer
Word And Bhaskar
Take UpShetty Accepts
The Rationalists’
Rationalist/Skeptic
Astrology Challenge? Narendra Nayak's
Astrology
Is Challenge
The Virgin Mary Shedding
Be-Bop-A-Lula: Evolution andTears?
the Divine
Rationalists Investigate
aren't necessary contradi... An Alleged Miracle
in Kerala,aroor:
sushanth India Sir, I forgot to add that the
Nirmukta
health andRadio Podcast Episode #4:
progress...
Interviewaroor:
sushanth - BlairAnScott, Affiliate
extremely Director
well written
for American
article,sir. BeingAtheists
a do...
First
RobertMeeting
Priddy:Of The Karnataka
Everyone knows that
Rationalist Association
Sathya Sai Baba is protected in Bangalore
f... on the
14th of March, 2010.
Ramesh: It is not the question of who
In Defence
knows whatofBillRationalism
Gate...
astrology atheist baba Brahmanism challenge

Chopra Church Complexity Darwin Deepak eclipse
evolution explained freethought Globalization God
government hindu hinduism hindus India
interview Islam Karnataka Krishna Mangalore Meera
morality Nanda narendra Naturalism nayak
Nirmukta Premanand Pseudoscience ramdev
Nirmukta Quiz!
rationalism Rationalist rationalists religion Science
P.O.V. superstition Tour Upanishads yoga
Welcome to the quiz section on Nirmukta!
This month's quiz is on Homeopathy in India.

Stay up to date
Subscribe to the RSS Feed

Subscribe to the feed via email
Click on Image
Astrologers Wanted
Nirmukta is looking for astrologers and astrology software to predict the year ahead for noted skeptics from
around the world, as well as for the contributors at Nirmukta. If you are interested or have information that
could help, please contact us using the form on the Contact Us page. We are interested in having Chinese,
Western and Vedic astrologers demonstrate and prove to us the validity of their claims.
Indian CSICOP
Website for the Indian Committee For Scientific Investigation Of Claims Of The Paranormal.
Currently discussed topics on the Indian Atheists Forum

One of the famous atheist Kamal Hasan ,said about Religionsundareswaran.v
Hindu-Muslim lovers on run after MLA threatens themAshish Patil
Govt gets cold feet on honour killings BillAshish Patil
Kerala man's palm cut off in faith row; 2 heldAshish Patil
Blogroll
21 Century Revolution
Bigot Blog
Call for Investigation of Sai Baba
Cosmic Conundrums
Cultural Naturalism Report
Fiery Scribe
Friendly Atheist
Indonesian Atheists
Inverse Squared
Me: Unlimited
Memeing Naturalism
New Age Crap
Nitwit Nastik
Rational Thoughts: Unlimited
Smiling Colours
The Church of the Churchless
The Hindu Atheist
Followers (89)
Follow this blog

11/22/2010 Biocentrism
g Demystified: A Response t…
Our Twitter Feed

âTo be an atheist requires infinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which
atheism would denyâ Joseph Addison 35 mins ago
BBC's Panorama claims Islamic schools teach antisemitism and homophobia http://tinyurl.com/375tepa 36
mins ago
Pastor who said Facebook was 'portal to infidelity' had four-way relationship http://tinyurl.com/28czuj4 36
mins ago
OUT Campaign
In solidarity with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, Nirmukta members proudly present
OUT Campaign - INDIA.
Translations available in:
Hindi, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, Bengali and Marathi
Indian Atheists
Login
Username:
Password:
Or login using an OpenID
Remember me
Login »
Register
Lost your password?
© 2010 Nirmukta. Powered by Wordpress.

Biocentrism Demystified A Response To Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanzas Notion of A Conscious Universe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biocentrism Demystified A Response To Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanzas Notion of A Conscious Universe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/22/2010 Biocentrism Demystified: A Response t…

Enter your search keyword

Stumble! I like it! Share All topics 17 favorites

Categorized | Ajita Kamal, Featured Posts, Naturalism, Pseudoscience, Vinod

Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to Deepak Chopra and

Like 405 people like this. Be the first of your friends.

2. Biocentrism Misinterprets Several Scientifically Testable Truths

There is only some partial truth to Lanza’s claims. Color is an

there is a difference between being the ‘mind’s tools’ and being

Much of Lanza’s idealism arises from a distrust/incomprehension of mathematics. He writes:

3. The Planetary Anthropic Principle

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2007)

Wave function bifurcation

In a computer experiment, Blume-Kohout and Zurek (2007) demonstrated quantum Darwinism

Gell-Mann’s coarse-graining interpretation of quantum mechanics

5. The Cosmological Anthropic Principle

Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar

6. String Theory and the Anthropic Principle

Artistic Rendition of the Multiverse. Source: Nature

8. The Nature of Consciousness

1. What is this consciousness?

Consider this statement by Lanza:

The Cartesian Theater

In a dualistic or idealistic context, Lanza’s definition of consciousness as subjective experience may be

Towards the end of their article, Chopra and Lanza say:

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is an enormous over-simplification. It’s helpful if you want to

“Evolutionary biology is stuck with regard to simultaneous mutations. One kind of

Let us recapitulate the main points:

1. Deepak Chopra: A New Age Shaman (Watch Video)

This post was written by:

Coauthors- - who has written 2 posts on Nirmukta.

Contact the author

224 Responses to “Biocentrism Demystified: A Response to

1. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi says:

Radhasoami Faith View of Modus Operandi of Creation of Universe

I prefer a creation theory that is more inline with this.

Joe Isuzu says:

So I’ll go with Evolution and I’ll choose what I find useful…

Vinod Wadhawan says:

Satish Chandra says:

6. Mark Maloney says:

1 – The origin of the “Universe.”

Sincerely, Mark Maloney

7. Mr. Universe says:

Regarding Hawking, I quote from our article:

The debate on consciousness is not likely to end anytime soon!

I also believe that consciousness is an EMERGENT property, arising because of the

9. Joe Isuzu says:

“The Long and Embarrassing List of The Spooky Scientists”

Joe Isuzu says:

In Dualistan, you can only see/feel/think in discontinuity, on a dual mode where

Joe Isuzu says:

Determinism is the philosophical view that every event, including human

Joe Isuzu says:

Once again a partial explanation;

Determinism should not be confused with determination of human

I don’t see what I didn’t copy changes something to

The point was to show how and why non-dualism

That Consciousness is uncreated may be just a natural

Joe Isuzu says:

Dr. Wadhawan put it succinctly when he stated that

Thanks for the precision. It was nice