caliban wrote:Dear SC,
There is a link to his "article" in the New Scholar. Have you read it? Not the piece in Wired. If not, please do so. (I do not mean this as criticism of your question--I'm merely suggesting that, if you haven't tried to read his "theory" you ought to.)
I didn't see your suggestion as critical at all - I followed the link to the Science citation, but that's all that was there. I found the one in American Scholar - is that what you were referring to?
The short answer is: a "theory" is not a series of complaints about some other theory. This is why creationism, intelligent design, and so on, are not real "theories," they are litanies of complaints about evolution, the Big Bang, and so on.
I think Creationism in many forms predates Big Bang, evolution, etc. and can be considered to be a theory of a sort (not a scientific one in that there is no real evidence for it). That said, I get your point and am picking nits.
Try the link to the New Scholar (which I never heard of before and will never ever read again) and read the article, and apply my criteria above, you will be able to deduce, without my descending into invective, exactly what I think.
I get your general impression, but I'd like to pursue a couple of the claims made in the article as I've often wondered about them. I have no desired outcome or pre-formed opinion on these really, just a desire to kick them around to try to understand current theory better.
Eugene Wigner, one of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, called it impossible “to formulate the laws of [physics] in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness [of the observer].”
"We are wont to imagine time extending all the way back to the big bang, before life’s early beginning in the seas. But before matter can exist, it has to be observed by a consciousness."
I'm aware of the famous question by Einstein about whether looking away from the moon causes it to cease, and that the answer was affirmative (by whom I cannot recall - I don't think it was Bors). Risking a diversion into recent politics, I suppose determining what "is" is, is central to the question. It seems to me that this proposal of Lanza's requires consciousness to be outside space and time. While I don't see this as a reason to discount the idea necessarily, given that consciousness is very difficult to pin down, it does seem to bring about another round of first-mover philosophical argument. Just seems like an iteration of more common ideas without a real solution. Anyway - enough of my ignorant rambling - is Lazlo correct in this statement? Could you discuss why or why not?
Thanks in advance,
PS> Relating back to an earlier discussion, perhaps a test of AI could be to set it up to look at a two-hole experiment and examine the end results after the fact.