Talk:Biocentric universe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old archives

Old talk up to January 2010 regarding this page, the split into this page and Biocentrism (ethics), and move proposals regarding this page, can be found at Talk:Biocentrism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2 changes being made

"philosophical" - The author and many others consider this a scientific theory. I removed "scientific" as a compromise. Adding "philosophical" seems inappropriate.

Intelligent Design advocates also consider their ideas a scientific theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.105.1 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

" the Copenhagen interpretation of" - Needless complexity and I am dubious of that being sourced to the author. Maybe a quote= param?

The removal was reverted with the explanation that the source clearly says it was an essay. Yes, there is an essay about the contents of the book. And? Unrelated to either edit made by the revert.- Sinneed 15:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We just went through a long wrangle about this (science or philosophy or not notable at all, etc., with article locks, account blocks, and much wasted time about this fringe theory), please consider reviewing the archives. Cosmology is not generally considered philosophy.- Sinneed 15:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical theories are also generally not subject to experimental testing; one may disagree that the theory actually is, but that is what the author and sources claim. Regarding interpretations, I don't believe any of the sources call out Copenhagen. The theory is its own interpretation of quantum mechanics — although if you had to pick an existing one that it's closest to, relational might be it. -Jordgette (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Lanza doesn't actually specify a particular interpretation, though he is clearly talking about philosophical inferences, not any kind of quantitative science. Peter Grey (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The moon is clearly made of cheese. Lanza disagrees with your interpretation, in the sources used in the article. Again, see the long wrangle, if interested. Perhaps with new sources that support the position that he was making philosophical arguments rather than scientific ones?- Sinneed 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Again, perhaps a quote= param? - Sinneed 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanza's agreement is irrelevant; he's not a reliable source for this subject. Peter Grey (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanza would be a reliable source under wp:SELFPUB about why he thought something. - Sinneed 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content from Houston Chronicle

When did Lanza gain control of the Houston Chroncle? I think we can safely say that the Houston Chronicle remains wp:RS. Lanza would be a reliable source under wp:SELFPUB about why he thought something. I'll restore this in the morning, unless there is a reason we can't use the Chronicle, or some other reason. I am finding it difficult to wp:AGF in this, perhaps with better edit summaries? - Sinneed 07:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The biocentric universe theory was proposed by Lanza; sourced.

2. Lanza believes certain things about this theory; also sourced.

Therefore it is appropriate in the Wikipedia article to mention Lanza's beliefs about his own theory as reported in reliable sources. I don't see any ambiguity here.

Perhaps Peter Grey would like to propose article deletion under WP:FRINGE, rather than continue to remove sourced information? -Jordgette (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanza is a primary source, not an encyclopedic source, and his assertion, ambiguous or not, is merely is (biased) personal opinion, unless a reliable source has verified his claim. Peter Grey (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The generally wp:reliable source, Houston Chronicle, (though certainly not a learned journal, and thus of limited use here) reported a remark that is relevant, factual (correct or not), by the notable author of the theory that is a subject of the article. An interested editor may review his article or this article, and find other notable figures who disagree. I might argue that this remark would go to wp:BALANCE and would better belong in the reception section. My thinking in not moving it earlier was that having it in the lead points up immediately to any brief reader that there must be concern about it being a scientific theory, which was in the lead at that time. I still see no strong reason to move it out, and certainly no excuse to chop it out.

• Interestingly, (to me) I am having the obverse discussion at Lanza's article, where a quote by a non-notable person that is relevant but not factual has been edit-warred into the Lanza article. I want to remove it under wp:NPOV, wp:advert, but am opposed by an anon editor (who just logged in today).- Sinneed 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, (remembering), my argument for showing the concern about whether or not this is a scientific theory was based on the intrinsic POV of the article title: cosmology is taken to be science, this is a cosmology article, thus readers may infer this is a scientific theory. There is an ongoing wrangle about naming, as well.- Sinneed 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or disagreement among experts in the field as to falsifiability would be highly relevant to the article, but Lanza's one-off personal assertion is not, even if he believes it. Peter Grey (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your argument but I cannot agree... sourced, factual, relevant, from a notable source.- Sinneed 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Switch from argues to claims

This was not appropriate, see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim. Please remove this. One might say, for example "states" or "says". I chose "argue" to show that it is indeed contested, and the statement was, in context, as I read it, an argument against his critics. Again, wp:BALANCE.- Sinneed 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Expanding: again without breaking wp:NPOV, I think it is important to wp:BALANCE the intrinsic POV that this (what I see as a fringe theory) is science... it is titled in reference to a scientific branch of study, the creator of the theory is a scientist, scientists comment on it pro and con, it gets press in science periodicals. - Sinneed 20:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why a statement in a primary source from a biased party is not appropriate. Again, the dispute is encyclopedic; Lanza's individual statement, which may or may not even be truthful, is not. Peter Grey (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again. The Chronicle is not a primary source.- Sinneed 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicle quoted Lanza. Peter Grey (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotes themselves are primary sources. When quoted in a newspaper article, that (nested) quote becomes part of a secondary source. Therefore when we then cite the mention of the quote in a newspaper article, it is not the citation of a primary source, but rather the citation of a secondary source. Is this really so difficult, or am I missing something? -Jordgette (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a nested quote, which would imply some minimum of editorial judgement, it's a transcribed interview. Peter Grey (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed makes a good point about "claim." According to the guideline, it should only be used in this meaning when two claims are balancing each other; it should not be used unilaterally where it might be seen to cast a claim in a bad light, which is what the word is currently doing. The neutral word is "says." Again, I don't think it's appropriate to try weakening this article through "death by a thousand cuts." I believe the article should either reflect the sources, or it should be nominated for deletion altogether. -Jordgette (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed povishness added again. Proposed another set of wording. Needs more work.- Sinneed 01:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The latest (06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)) wording is much better. Peter Grey (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was fine before, but this is a good consensus version. If only the U.S. Congress could work like this. -Jordgette (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An anon reved the work out, arguing that there was already an entire reception section. By wp:lead, we should roughly have half the lead about the theory itself, and roughly half about reception. With the expansion, that is very very roughly what we have, so I have reverted the anon. Support/opposition/thoughts?- Sinneed 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why this article states that the most widely taught and accepted interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is discredited? --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Cosmological

I wonder if it might be better to add "broadly" to make the hat note "broadly cosmological theory". This theory covers a great deal of territory, and this might make it clearer on quick reading, without offering a value judgement, that this is so.- Sinneed 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't even understand why this article appears to be included in the category of Physical cosmology. My intention is by no means to decry it, yet this simply is the wrong place. Personally I could live with "cosmology", but Biocentrism, by definition, is flat out anti-physicalist. If it existed, the place to put it certainly would be something like "Bio-Cosmology" -- and although there's nothing of the sort, that doesn't make Physical cosmology any better nor even quasi-correct. This hypothesis has all but nothing to do with physical cosmology! And --by golly-- what exactly is its relation to quantum field theory?? Is this some kind of joke?! Lanza's book, even if pertly passed as something else, has a clearly philosophical theme and matter above all. You need a category? So why not go for Metaphysics/Ontology? Because that is what it's all about. No more, no less. Zero Thrust (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting metaphysics and ontology as a proposal? They do sound like improvements. Peter Grey (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if anything, it was meant as a proposal. I just deem it more fitting. Or, at least as fitting as possible. Lanza's take on the theory (in fact: hypothesis) of Biocentrism, virtually by definition, is unfalsifiable. And, as far as I understood the intricacies, it most probably never will be. Lanza's own (and understandable) somewhat being at odds with this simple fact doesn't make it go away. But it is just this what to my mind renders it philosophy, rather than actual science. I certainly don't mean this disparaging, however: Theories of physical cosmology, or those in quantum physics, as a matter of, and at least in principle, have to be falsifiable, of course. Biocentrism isn't. That's why I think it's misplaced. Neither the eponymous book, nor the idea in general is about physical cosmology, much less about quantum field theory -- not in the scientifically accurate sense of it. Zero Thrust (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ultimate question?

Biocentrism is more then Robert Lanza's notion on the relation between observer and object world, though he may have a point there. The meaning of the word 'Biocentrism' is not to be dictated by the title of a book by mr. Lanza. (And, by the way, the word biocentric was already used by Lawrence Henderson. See Wikipedia: In his classical book The Fitness of the Environment (1913) we find "an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter" (Henderson). He saw the properties of matter and the course of cosmic evolution intimately related to the structure of the living being and to its activities. He concluded: "the whole evolutionary process, both cosmic and organic, is one, and the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric". ) Biocentrism should be the way to look at humankind in all its aspects as an integral part of the Earth Life System. Let us see where such an analysis may lead us to. Some 28 years ago, after a visit to J.E. Lovelock, who then had already published "Gaia, a new look at life on earth", I wrote to the scientific magazine Nature about my ideas on what I named 'biocentrism'. In this letter to Nature, (published Vol 295, january 7, 1982) I reacted on an article by G.K O'Neill about the the probability of the development of space colonies and asked if it was reasonable to make an association with the idea of an overall "organism". If future space colonies are some sort of copies of the Earth biosphere could they then be seen as "offspring" or "children" of Gaia? This letter, entitled 'The Ultimate Question', ended with " It is a question that goes beyond science, and gives us a choice between heroic antropocentrism and a more objective but difficult to accept biocentrism." This biocentrism is not in contradiction to Robert Lanza's, it is more, it is thinking all the way through and just the logical outcome of a consequent biocentric world view.

- Roeland de Bie Roeland Alexander (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I think that if this theory caught on and the article were expanded, it would be good to show a few historical precedents for the use of the word "biocentrism" in a cosmological context. -Jordgette (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism by non-notables

There was a recent addition of criticism, but it was not from a reliable source. One reference was to a blog by a non-notable "secular blogger" and a non-notable solid-state physicist (solid state physics is a long way from this theory). Another was by a non-notable blogger named "Orac." Both mentioned PZ Myers, who is notable, but Myers only linked to one of the blogs, and I don't think his having done so turns this blog into a reliable source. I'd be interested in hearing other opinions. -Jordgette (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also think the reception section already contains a reasonable balance of criticism for biocentrism 69.143.59.77 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, too. I think I've read the blog entry mentioned, some time ago, should the blog in question actually be of Indian origin (yet written in English)?! If it is, it doesn't even contain a critical assessment of Biocentrism proper, but a pronouncedly negative critique concerning only certain (and as such undeniably dubious) parts of the very book by R. Lanza. In other words, the authors obviously enjoy themselves in merely singling out the weakest points of the story, thereby missing out the bigger picture. Although that is what this article here targets and should be about. At any rate, it didn't make a good reference, let alone a reliable source. Zero Thrust (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreed! (However I agree with the non-notability of the authors) The link the scientific article is important for readers who wish to have a scientific perspective, however negative it may be it is still based upon reason. As for whether the amount of the book it addresses, logically one does not need to address every element of a system, one flaw can screw the whole thing up. A fellow of a scientific institute is non-notable? That is fair, however PZ-myers referred specifically to this, surely "notable." One would assume Krauss' opinion only concerns 'certain parts.' So if your criteria is knowing a notable person's opinion: Reading Myer's blog is clear that he shares this opinion. Calling Lanza a 'pedeller' and having 'bad physics.' Perhaps writing 'PZ myers referred to: blah by blah, calling Lanza... etc.' I'm open for ideas, but honestly: Anything to get this theory closer in perspective with currently verifiable science. I also find it strange that the page does not mention his degree is in Medicine, not particle physics/cosmology (which the theory inherently concerns). However that is secondary. Thanks for discussing!

If you have a published comment by PZ Myers, that would be a good addition to the article. But for all we know, (1) Myers doesn't like Biocentrism, (2) Myers saw that someone had ripped the theory apart, and (3) Myers linked to the article without even reading it. In other words, a "like" or a "thumbs up" by a notable person does not make the item itself notable. (Neither does being a member of a notable organization.) And frankly, saying that an article is "well worth a read" isn't even taking a position on how correct it is.

These bloggers begin their article with a misleading statement that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the role of philosophy in science: that biocentrism is "re-inventing idealism, an ancient philosophical concept that fell out of favour with the advent of the scientific revolution." Actually materialism is every bit a philosophical concept as well, and may very well be falling out of favor again as the pendulum swings. The bloggers also do not present a correct explanation of quantum theory. They write, "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 is incorrect; discontinuities are not introduced. When decoherence occurs, the global system continues to evolve according to the Schrodinger equation. The authors go on to discuss the multiverse and strings which must exist, which is funny since there was a whole section on biocentrism being non-falsifiable (ever try falsifying the multiverse?) There's plenty more but I'll leave it at that. But this is why it would help to have PZ Myers himself write about the theory, as opposed to a couple of non-notables. I encourage someone to re-remove the comments from the criticism section. -Jordgette (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the actual criticism? This really reads as a POV problem to me. Richard Conn Henry is used to support what appears to be a very flawed understanding of quantum phenomena, when the guy has previously written an article which states "the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental." http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf. It's quantum woo despite being printed in Nature. I can't believe that no scientist is challenging the idea that human thought has created the universe. If anything it's a non-falsifiable philosophical idea rather than a scientifically supported principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdbrady (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Needed addition to the article

Biocentricism needs to incorporate the Biocosm Hypothesis of James Gardner. John D. Croft (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source or notable theorist would have to make that connection; we can't do that here, because doing so would be synthesis. -Jordgette [talk] 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Individual has successfully managed to lock in two Extremists blogs

After an aggressive non-stop campaign to post these blogs on every conceivable website and message board they could, they have finally managed to succeed on Wikipedia (where you throw mud and can get it to stick). The reception section on this page was reached by consensus after a VERY lengthly and drawn out process that balanced both sides. Supportors of biocentrism have been respectful not to unset the balance and have avoided adding potentially hundreds of positive quotes. However, it nows appears an individual has managed to add on (and promote) two very negative and extremist blogs --at the begining of the section (even ahead of NASA and the Nobel laureate).

I'm curious as to why we use a quote by E. Donnall Thomas. He's obviously a brilliant man but he isn't a physicist, biologist or a philosopher and so doesn't have the expertise to comment on this topic. Secondly, Deepak Chopra is an endocronologist and a motivational speaker, also not a physicist, biologist or philosopher and has been embarrassed by actual physicists publicly for grossly misrepresenting quantum physics (This is a great debate where Chopra gets called out). I think both of these sources should be removed.

On the other hand, the sources you're arguing against are all experts in related fields. Wadhawan is a solid state physicist and as such is qualified to speak on matters of physics. As for Ajita Kamal, he is not simply a "rationalist secular blogger," he is an expert in evo. I'm not sure if his opinion deserves WP:WEIGHT but he's definitely qualified to comment on matters of biology. Lastly, PZ Meyers is a well respected professor of biology whose blog is also well respected by the scientific community. I haven't been involved in past discussions on this page but it appears to me that during the lengthy discussion you mentioned too many concessions were made.

What this section needs is pro comments from qualified, reliable sources (i.e. physicists, biologists and professional philosophers). Sædon^talk 02:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a protracted argument about the details of the reception section, but I have a couple of comments. Firstly, I reverted the deletion of the comments that the editor who started this thread objects to largely on grounds of Wikipedia:COI. The removal was done by an editor who is almost certainly connected to Lanza personally. The editor's IP address places him/her in Shrewsbury, Mass., where BioHybrid Technologies is located. Lanza worked there for many years. My edit was reversed by an editor located just a few miles away with an edit summary falsely claiming that there were already more negative than positive comments in the section. Now this thread is started by yet another editor who is also located in the same region (all within about 10 miles of each other). If they are different people, it seems a rather odd coincidence that they all are so close geographically right where Lanza worked. So I have concerns that there is a conflict of interest here.

As for the complaint about an "aggressive non-stop campaign to post these blogs on every conceivable website and message board they could", I have no idea what this editor is talking about. I am not a part of and have no knowledge of such a campaign, nor do I see its relevance to the question of what should or should not be included in an article here. All I know is that the article says that the reception to Lanza's book has been "mixed" and the current version of the section is about 50/50 positive/negative reactions. 99.192.84.161 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem you have an ax to grind. You seem to think a distinguished Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology is unqualified to comment on life and consciousness, yet a "rationalist secular blogger" is. Also, you should check your arithmetic --before you skewed the section there were four positive quotes (Thompson, Thomas, Atala, Chopra) and 4 negative/critical(Krauss, Lindley Dennett, Henry). That seems like 50/50 to me. But then you singlehandedly decided to double the negative content by adding three extremist bloggers (Wadhawan, Kamal, and PZ Meyers). How would you like it if others added three glowing quotes from prominent scientist. This is an attempt to slant this page (or should I say "bash" biocentrism). If you disagree with biocentrism, that's fine. But trashing it by adding quotes like "Lanza's bad physics" goes overboard and borders on abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.121.164 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) "You seem you have an ax to grind." Not at all. Do you say this to everyone who disagrees with you?

(2) "You seem to think a distinguished Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology is unqualified to comment on life and consciousness." Huh? Where did I say that? I did not remove any comments from the article nor did I suggest any should be removed. Are you talking to me or to Saedon?

(3) "before you skewed the section there were four positive quotes (Thompson, Thomas, Atala, Chopra) and 4 negative/critical(Krauss, Lindley Dennett, Henry)." The Henry comment cannot possibly be seen as anything but positive. Henry says that "Lanza's theory is consistent with quantum mechanics." That's a good thing, isn't it? If not, then how can the statement that "quantum theory ... is consistent with the idea of an objective universe that exists without a conscious observer" be counted as a criticism? Also, the Henry quotation says that what Lanza says is true and that it is important that he say it because others are silenced by political correctness. Again, this sounds like praise for Lanza. So I make the count 5 positive and 3 negative.

(4) You still do not address the Wikipedia:COI concern. 99.192.84.161 (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought: Whatever reception/criticism comments are kept in the article, it just occurred to me that it might be a good idea to break the section into two paragraphs: one with positive reactions and one with negative ones. That would read a bit clearer and would also make it easier to compare the "balance" of the section. Just a thought. 99.192.84.161 (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We generally don't aim for balance on wikipedia. Instead we aim for neutrality, which isn't the same thing, see WP:NPOV. Balance only applies in a specific case, see WP:BALANCE. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I was saying. I am aware that neutrality rather than "balance" should be the goal in articles. I was merely saying that if the reviews have indeed been "mixed" (as the article did claim and I had no reason to doubt) then the sampling of reviews included should reflect that mixture.

I should also add here that I am surprised that the blurb quotations are not considered valid for inclusion. I would think that so long as the people making the statements have credentials (and reputations) that give their judgments weight and so long as they have no personal stake in the success of the book (they are not co-authors, business partners of the author or publisher, etc.) that their comments are valid assessments. I'm not questioning whether this actually is the Wikipedia policy. I'm just saying I'm surprised that it is. 99.192.82.108 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've removed the views of two mainstream scientists on biocenrism: 1) a top astrophysicist at NASA, as well as Dr Atala, one of the world most renowned scientists. Doesn't seen right at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.121.164 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm short on time and new to this article so diffs would be helpful otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about. An astrophysicist may well be an expert on the topic but I can't know unless you point it out. It would be nice if all these people would publish their opinions in peer reviewed journals rather than just say them, just as an aside. Sædon^talk 06:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed a promotional quote which was taken from the blurb on the book. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These are the legitimate views of two extremely reputable scientists on the topic of biocentrism, regardless of whether their quotes were used for a book, a book review, or a blog site. It reflects their views on Biocentrism, peroid:

Deletion 1) David Thompson, an astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said that Lanza's “work is a wake-up call.

Deletion 2: Wake Forest University scientist and professor of medicine Anthony Atala stated, "This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come."

Why does the view of an Associate Professor (PZ Meyers) trump the Chairman and a named distinguished professor at a leading university? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.20.65 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What relevance do you think a professor of medicine has to cosmology? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep beating this (apparently) dead horse, but I will note one final time that the above IP Address (173.166.20.65) is located in the same place where (according to his Wikipedia page) Lanza currently lives. The edit history shows that this editor has made very few edits, only revising the Biocentrism (cosmology) page, Lanza's page, the page for Lanza's company (Advanced Cell Technology), one technical scientific page (ITGA2B), and the page for the law firm that handled Lanza's patents. No attempt has been made by this editor or the other two who are within a few miles of the same location to address the issue of Wikipedia:COI. It is quite possible that editor 173.166.20.65 is Lanza himself or one of his co-workers. 99.192.58.242 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks probable, you can file a request at WP:COIN for someone to look at it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Move article

I would suggest moving the article to Biocentrism (philosophy). As it reflects the article more. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. The article was entitled "Biocentrism (cosmology)" to provide a clear contrast with Biocentrism (ethics). Since ethics is a branch of philosophy, calling this article "Biocentrism (philosophy)" would not provide that contrast as clearly. 99.192.82.108 (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

However, Biocentrism (cosmology) is a weak choice because in addition to meaning a kind of philosophical system cosmology can also mean a branch of the physical sciences. Peter Grey (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Philosophers and physicists mean the same thing by the word "cosmology". There is no ambiguity in the term. They might at times be interested in different sorts of cosmological questions, but there is no difference in the understanding of what the word "cosmology" means. (Just as philosophers and psychologists are often worried about different sorts of moral questions even though they mean the same thing by the word "morality".) 99.192.82.149 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Physicists mean quantum field theory, general relativity, high-energy physics, nucleosynthesis, dark energy, etc. That is not what philosophers mean. Peter Grey (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Peter Grey (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a move should be taking place. This is a theory about biology, which claims that it will bring other sciences in and will assume the position of primary science. But it is still biology, so we should move it to "Biocentrism (biology)". This would remove many of the concerns of physicists here, and concerns that cosmology as a term overblows the scientific importance of this issue. Does anybody mind if I make that move?Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand the problems with Biocentrism (cosmology), but I don't like Biocentrism (biology). The theory, as it were, is not one concerning biological facts or a theory within biology. Rather it attempts to change the relation between biology and other disciplines. In that sense, (philosophy) would be more appropriate, if we didn't have an (ethics) article as well. Maybe Biocentrism (ontology)? Or even something like Biocentrism (new age hypothesis)? -Jordgette [talk] 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How about Biocentrism (theory) ? It's basic and doesn't have the connotations of proven science. The book it's based on is based largely in scientific thinking and not philosophical thinking, so philosophy might still be problematic. I do think this article should not have cosmology in the title though, as it is not an accepted cosmological theory.Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeaaaah, but the ethical biocentrism can be considered kind of a theory as well, being a theory of ethics. We can't say scientific theory. New age theory? Ontological theory? -Jordgette [talk] 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the book yet, but from what I've seen online, biocentrism is a biological theory of everything (thus, bio-centrism). Why not: Biocentrism (biologic theory)?Josophie (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that sounds like protein synthesis or natural selection or some other theory within the discipline of biology. It would be like saying that Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is a mathematical theory. -Jordgette [talk] 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Jeremy suggested Biocentrism (theory), but you thought ethical biocentrism could be considered kind of a theory as well. This could be resolved by changing it to - Biocentrism (theory of everything). Alternatively, working off 'biology' (and to eliminate your cocnern about it sounding like protein sysnthesis: Biocentrism (biology - universe).Josophie (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I like (theory of everything)...even if it is only a proposed theory or hypothesis. This label gets the job done and produces no confusion. -Jordgette [talk] 20:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a consensus to me. I'll make the move now.Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Copenhagen discredited?

Can anyone explain to me why this article states that the most widely taught and accepted interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is discredited? --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I moved your question to a new section. It's a good question and I'm deleting the sentence as unnecessary. There is disagreement and misunderstanding about the Copenhagen interpretation. Heisenberg was comfortable saying things like the act of observation causes the wave function to collapse. But over the decades, physicists (who tend to avoid such strong metaphysical positions) softened that to be more like, nothing can be said about a reality that is not being observed. That is more in line with how most see Copenhagen today, that it is an epistemological rather than ontological interpretation. I'm guessing the speaker, a solid-state physicist, is into Bohmian mechanics or an objective collapse interpretation, and wants to make Copenhagen seem as absurd as possible. Copenhagen hasn't been discredited. Frankly an obscure solid-state physicist isn't the best authority on the subtle distinctions among the various QM interpretations, let alone a secular blogger, whatever that is. It's surprisingly common (and petty) for one hunkered-down scientist to say this is the way it is, and for another to say you're wrong, no one believes that absurdity anymore, this is the way it is. -Jordgette [talk] 20:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to seeing how this article evolves. --Teacherbrock (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle

Reading this article, the philosophical theory, or scientific concept if you will, seems to be a restatement of Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP), e.g. as picked up and expanded by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in their 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. See also the wikilinks Anthropic principle#Variants and Digital physics#Wheeler's "it from bit". And these theories are consistent with the von Neumann Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Isn't there some acknowledgement by Lanza about prior work on this theory? [[Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not read Lanza's book, but the Discover article does mention Wheeler's PAP. In that article, Lanza says biocentrism is "an explanation for and extension of" Wheeler's hypothesis (though it really isn't much of an explanation, just an extension).

I've been following this article for a couple of years. Even though I think Lanza has done a terrible job trying to popularize his ideas, what Aarghdvaark said above is true. There are parallels in physics which Lanza himself may not even be aware of. But every once in a while someone comes through and tries to downplay any legitimacy given by the Wikipedia article, perhaps in favor of a super-reductionist (a.k.a. "secularist" or "rationalist") worldview. Those who know better, the really big contemporary thinkers such as such as Lee Smolin and Paul Davies, realize that it's time to look in a few different directions — maybe biocentrism is one. I don't believe that Lanza's proposed "consciousness field" is the answer to anything, but let's not rush to paint the broader concept as a pseudoscience fantasy. -Jordgette [talk] 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IP addresses

Just for future reference, when an editor takes a version of a page into their sandbox for tweaking, it is considered vandalism to go into their personal sandbox and begin changing it. No other way to contact IP addresses associated with this page directly, but please ensure that you follow proper Wikipedia protocol and wait to see if such copy is eventually moved to the live page, at which point feel free to do with it as you wish :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

List

I noted that in previous deletions there was a list of 7 key points for Biocentrism. I wonder if this could further add to our explanation of the theory? If there is disagreement with this please let me know, otherwise I may try to redraft a Wikified version of this list for the article at hand. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the list was removed primarily because of copyright concerns. I don't think it added much to the article, given it was merely rehashing Lanza's primary-source material. If the "7 principles of biocentrism" were something that was actively debated in secondary reliable sources, that would be one thing, but.... -Jordgette [talk] 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely copyright concerns can be addressed. Other Wikipedia pages describe the principles of theories without violating copyright laws. This page is about 'biocentrism' so why wouldn’t you list the principles of the theory regardless of whether other sources debates them or not? I agree that is an important (but separate) issue. The principles would definitely help the reader understand what this theory is all about (they do for me). The reader wouldn’t have to guess if it says this or that. In my opinion it would add clarity and help the reader understand the topic better, and I think that’s a good thing. Why don't we let Jermey take a stab at the wording if he wants? Josophie (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I still find this section to need a bit more explanation so that the reader has a better grasp of the concept, just want to make sure it's in line with the constructive direction the page has been moving in.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an excessive quote. Find reliable independent secondary sources that provide the description. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but we still need a clearer explanation of the theory, so let's make sure we're trying to be constructive in that pursuit :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research", "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." IRWolfie- (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A question: there were two sources added with this one, both of which were third party and independent that did cover the list, which you also erased. Why are these not the kinds of sources you are talking about. Also, why is it that you don't a description of the theory from the founder of the theory. The fact it is on Wikipedia means the theory is notable, so wouldn't the basic tenants of the theory be a very important aspect of describing the theory on Wikipedia?Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, reading WP:Fringe, I don't think you are correct. It states--

"Some things require a bit more care:

3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia:

4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics."

The evidence on this page very clearly shows that there is a reasonable amount of academic debate going on. Also, point 4 states that you are overreaching to call the theory fringe. You're also misquoting the Fringe page, as it states that overall you need more than primary sources, but it does not state that every single source on the page cannot be primary. Besides the fact that I did put two independent sources in which the material was debated. So... there is no reason to call this theory fringe if using Wikipedia as the definition, there are indeed independent sources that were added along with this primary source, and the primary source is not being relied upon exclusively as you state, as there are plenty of other sources on the page. In each of those three counts you are not correct, so I feel it is important to put the basic tenants back up. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to show academic sourcing if you think it's a serious alternative formulation. I am not confident of the reliability of the other two sources (one is self published, the Hind source is rather credulous) and I also doubt their due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Biocentrism is a fringe theory. If there were other academics involved in this area, then we could say that it is indeed a legitimate formulation from within the scientific community, and a point of academic debate. That hasn't happened yet; there's just the one guy, who is a biologist/medical doctor attempting to work in the areas of foundational physics and quantum philosophy. -Jordgette [talk] 21:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not RS

[1] isn't an RS (see Journal_of_Cosmology) and arguments via WP:PARITY only apply to mainstream response. No weight attached to it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct. JoC shouldn't be used as an authoritative source, though in some circumstances it may be used to represent the view of the journal itself if an article calls for it, however it seems to be WP:UNDUE in this article. Sædon^talk 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You have not proven that this is not RS. The publication is peer-reviewed, and included in academic journal databases. See Author Guidelines for the Journal. In order to state it is not RS, please provide actual evidence that it is unreliable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#Journal_of_Cosmology as well as the Journal_of_Cosmology article itself. JoC has been discussed on numerous WT pages in the past and the consensus has always been that it's not an RS for serious scientific claims. The litmus test is this: if something has been published in JoC that hasn't been published in any high-impact journals then you can bank on it being fringe. Sædon^talk 20:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you for the evidence :) I appreciate the explanation! Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

PZ Meyers blog is perfectly reliable for his opinion. He is also a famous biologist. It's also fine per WP:PARITY to try and reach NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Myers is notable according to Wikipedia, and this topic is close enough to his expertise that his opinion is relevant. A notable quantum physicist, foundational physicist, or quantum philosopher would provide a more relevant opinion, but we go with what we have. -Jordgette [talk] 01:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. We also have Deepak here, who has no relevant qualifications, but I'm not complaining about his inclusion either :) IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Biocentric universe. "Theory of everything" is a rough definition of "metaphysics", but was clunky as an article title; consensus emerged at the end of the discussion for the eventual move. Miniapolis 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Biocentrism (theory of everything) → Biocentrism (metaphysics) – There has already been a discussion about appropriate article name, or, more precisely, what should be in the parentheses. The "metaphysics" wasn't one of the proposals and it would be better than "theory of everything" because this article is about a metaphysical concept and there is no ambiguity which would be with "philosophy". The "theory of everything" is misleading, because it might imply that this is about a candidate for the theory of everything (and it is also a bit clumsy compared to the "metaphysics"). 93.136.16.90 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisted. For more discussion on Biocentrism universe. --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Biocentrism is NOT metaphysics ("metaphysics" is considered a traditional branch of philosophy, not science). Although some of the conclusions of biocentrism may resonate with aspects of philosophy, the book (and theory) is not based on philosophy (i.e. metaphysics), but science. The conclusions of biocentrism are based on mainstream science, and are a logical extension of the work of some of the greatest scientific minds. Like any good theory, biocentrism cements the groundwork for new lines of investigation in physics and cosmology, even if (like Einstein’s relativity theory) it may take a few years before we can test all it’s tenants. Biocentrism is built entirely on established science, and all of which demand a rethinking of our current theories of the physical universe. I recognize change isn’t easy, and some in the establishment (I notice IRWolfie states on his user page that he is a student studying theoretical physics), so I can understand why many who disagree wish to dismiss biocentrism as philosophy. There is a kind of conformity which exists in science which makes it hard to see differently. Gregor Mendel, founder of modern genetics, suffered this fate. Darwin’s forerunners also endured similar behavior. Dozens and dozens of very prominent and distinguished scientists have strongly endorsed biocentrism … and not because biocentrism is a “metaphysical concept”Josophie (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To others, if you oppose the move, note who your WP:BEDFELLOWS are. I hate to do this, but frankly your confident insistence despite seemingly not knowing what you are talking about is galling. You are confident of what you know about science because you appear to know so very little. I will explain this simply; since it does not make falsifiable predictions and because it is not a coherent theory, it can not predict any physical phenomenon as is required by a theory of everything. It should be possible to deduce quantum mechanics and relativity from an actual theory of everything, please come back to me when you can do this with a "theory of everything" from a book intended for the popular audience that doesn't use any maths. Since it has not been published in peer reviewed publications it raises further red flags. Your attack based on me being more qualified than you is anti-intellectual and hypocritical; dismissing people because they know what they are talking about as part of the "establishment" is typical conspiratorial ideation, but like a true hypocrite you simultaneously cite unnamed scientists in an fallacious appeal to authority. You seem to think if something mentions something sciencey stuff (news flash: interpretations of quantum mechanics are philosophy) that means its a theory, quite frankly, you don't have a clue. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This language is not civil—it is abusive and creates a hostile editing environment (see WP:Civility): “Editors should always treat others with consideration and respect in order to help maintain a pleasant editing environment.” You may be a senior Wiki editor, but it doesn’t give you the right to abuse people like this.Josophie (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW You say I “cite unnamed scientists in an fallacious appeal to authority. Okay, I have now had a chance to put together a few examples, including many prominent scientists (many of which you deleted from the page over time):

"…it was abundantly obvious to me that Dr. Lanza’s writings provided me with the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking" when it came to his view of particle physics. Scott Tyson, author and physicist

"As an astrophysicist, I focus my attention on objects that are very large and very far away, ignoring the whole issue of consciousness as a critical part of the Universe. Reading Robert Lanza’s work is a wake-up call to all of us that even on the grandest scale we still depend on our minds to experience reality. Issues of “quantum weirdness” do have a place in the macroscopic world. Time and space do depend on perception…” David Thompson, Astrophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center

“What Lanza says in this book is not new. Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do NOT say it––or if we do say itF, we only whisper it, and in private––furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no” Richard Conn Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University

“[Biocentrism] takes into account all the knowledge we have gained over the last few centuries, and correlates them to our own beings, placing in perspective our biologic limitations that have impeded our understanding of greater truths surrounding our existence and the universe around us. This new theory is certain to revolutionize our concepts of the laws of nature for centuries to come.” Anthony Atala, Boyce Professor, Chair, and Director, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

“Yes, it is appropriate to ask whether our perception of space and time is a consequence of our particular neurophysiology. Yes, it is appropriate to ask how it happened that the conditions worked out to be just right for life to appear somehow on earth and then to evolve from the archaea through the eukaryotes to us. ... And I like to see books published that challenge my own ideas and thoughts in ways that make me think, but not ones that simply throw dogma at me..” R. Stephen Berry, Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago; past Home Secretary, National Academy of Sciences.

“Science has a token of freedom that motivates scientists to study all logical possibilities that may explain the world. Robert Lanza has come up with an innovative approach to investigate reality from the viewpoint of biology…Can science bring biology into grand unified theory? A solution is suggested that involves a new concept, biocentrism.” Gunther Kletetschka, Geophysicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.Josophie (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"the pieces of perspective that I had been desperately seeking..." "we still depend on our minds to experience reality..." "correlates them to our own beings, placing in perspective..." "whether our perception of space and time is..." "an innovative approach to investigate reality..." These quotes are all supportive of the theory being metaphysical. No one uses this kind of language for a testable theory of physics, or even string theory for that matter. -Jordgette [talk] 21:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are exactly right when you say this is NOT a theory of physics. Rather, it proposes a new paradigm. It places biology (life and consciousness) at the foundations of science--thus, the "bio" in the "centric." And you continue to ignore all comments here regarding falsibility, mathematics, and the testability of the theory.Josophie (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's not a physical theory, but instead claims to go beyond physics as you state, then it is metaphysics by definition. Ding. -Jordgette [talk] 20:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree--biology and the life sciences are not metaphysics (contrary to what some may want to beleive, one branch of science doesn't trump another)Josophie (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Important Note This move was proposed by IP address 93.136.16.90, which has made no edits outside this topic, and the Editor just as suddenly dropped off the map. The “Requested Move” itself is suspect, particularly from an Editor with virtually no other apparent Wikipedia editing experience (quite an impressive learning curve)...and right in behind him (within half-an-hour) comes IRWolfie.Josophie (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair. As the page is likely on IRWolfie's watchlist he would have been alerted to the RFC as soon as it was posted, and responded accordingly. Many of us also received notices on our talk pages, IRWolfie included, when this was posted from the posting IP-address. Even if an editor's post was 30 seconds afterwards, it wouldn't be suspicious. That's what the watchlist function allows editors to do--respond nearly simultaneously to the ideas and alterations of others. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It is also unfair because it is possible they are a user who happened to edit without signing in, unintentionally. Heck, I was cleaning up my own talk page one day (refactoring) and didn't realized I somehow signed off and someone tagged my IP for vandalism, lol... Assume a bit more good faith of this move request. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: As I mentioned above, IP Editor 93.136.16.90 initiated this “Requested Move.” According to IP Location.net this IP address is from Zagreb, Croatia. Note: four (4) additional IP addresses appear in sections below and on the main page from Zagreb, Croatia (78.1.144.86 / 93.139.105.121 / 93.136.34.201 /78.0.194.137). In summary, that makes five IP addresses that have few or no edits outside of this topic, and that appear to originate from the exact same location in Croatia.Josophie (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the change clarifies things. I was also toying with the idea that the article could be changed to Biocentrism (book) since it's really about the views in the book. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to Biocentrism (metaphysics) for reasons of clarity and neutrality. I agree with the above editor that this is currently an article about the book as much as the metaphysical proposition, but the article as written covers both topics and ought to have a title appropriate to that. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. I don't really think the article is about the book enough to go with that title. That's mostly an issue of framing, though. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree "Theory of Everything" was agreed to previously by concensus. Attempting to change it to "Metaphysics" is a misrepresentation of the theory. The entire theory and book (from A to Z) involves the extensive discussion of scientific experiments, concepts, and facts. The authors of biocentrism are both reputable scientists (a biologist and an astronomer). The effort to reclassify this a "metaphysics" lacks objectivity and may be motivated by a dislike of the theory. Josophie (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Reputable scientists can't write about metaphysics? We're not talking about astrology or something here. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Astrology? If you read the book, you'll see that it lays out point by point descriptions of the actual experiments and scientific observations. In fact, the science is the basis and backbone of the book and theory -- metaphysics or astrology is complete misrepresentation.173.166.20.65 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources say otherwise. Why are you acting as if anyone said it was like astrology, BDD said that we aren't talking about astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I misread something, but it sounded like Josophie was equating metaphysics with pseudoscience or something. I'm not a scientist—is "metaphysics" considered insulting or something? I was referring to a pseudoscience for the sake of comparison. I'm not suggesting that the theory is about astrology; that's a fairly baffling interpretation of what I wrote. --BDD (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, being metaphysics isn't an insult, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. For instance, skeptical materialism is a metaphysical theory (basically, it is the null hypothesis in that regard).

Having a background in philosophy and science I run into this a lot. Basically, many people (scientists being no exception) equate metaphysics with the supernatural. This is likely due to the colloquial use of the word amongst pseudosciensts like astrologers and other new age types. Since most people never study philosophy they never learn what the word actually refers to. Sædon^talk 23:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling it a theory of everything is misleading in that it isn't a theory of everything (as the reception makes clear), and isn't a theory in the scientific or philosophical senses. He may invoke scientific terminology in his books and articles which are targeted at the general public but that does not make what he says a theory. It's a metaphysical concept; it doesn't really matter if the author is an MD. The last proposal only had the opinions of 3 people, so it's hardly a consensus that we need to rigidly stick to (we already have 3 people agreeing with the move here). For a purported theory of everything, it's seems to be very light (non-existent?) on maths ... IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You’re commenting but obviously never read the book. It ends with two very detailed mathematical sections (full of lots of equations, if that makes you happy). But remember mathematics simply quantifies phenomena –it’s not a substitute for them.Josophie (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It only includes two very basic introductory equations from relativity in the appendices, one for time contraction and one for Spacetime#Spacetime_intervals. They in fact even made a typo writing the time contraction, so it is incorrect. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you’re judge, jury, and hangman. Since when does an anonymous editor pull rank and issue verdicts as to whether the equations of other scientists (in primary source material) are correct or not? Oh yea, yes there appears to be a typo in one of the two mathematical sections (you also read the review by Professor Richard Henry, which BTW you just deleted from the main page (somehow, in your eyes, his comments--a tenured physics Professor at Johns Hopkins University—in a peer-reviewed journal are more fring than the views of some unknown physicist on a fring blog site in India). We get it, you disagree with the theory.Josophie (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding your math argument. Biology, zoology, botany, and the other life sciences are not based on mathematics. Yes, PHYSICS is. But biocentrism is a biological theory and does not approach nature blindly assuming space and time are physical objects (a lot of great scientists have thought this). To think that biology (indeed, the rest of science) has to follow the rules of one group of scientists (physicists --yes IRWolfie, your future profession) is folly of the highest order. To say a biological theory (such as biocentrism or evolution) is not scientific (or to dismiss it as metaphysics) because it is not rely on mathematics or equations, is quite simply, arrogant.Josophie (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support for greater accuracy. Peter Grey (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support move The dominant meaning for theory of everything is a physics-based theory of everything, which the thesis of this book explicitly rejects. Looking at the article Theory of everything (philosophy), this is still about the philosophical issues surrounding the physical theory of everything. So, theory of everything seems to be exactly the wrong thing here. The more traditional term for a ToE in philosophy is metaphysics, concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. Metaphysics is also the more neutral term, in the sense that in the field many approaches to origins are possible, not just physical approaches. Unfortunately, while metaphysics is a perfectly serious, valid branch of philosophy, it has also become a euphemism for non-mainstream spiritual, paranormal, religious or pseudoscience topics; I think this was at the heart of the misunderstanding above. Nonetheless, metaphysics the philosophical field is the best term to disambiguate this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Robert Lanza claims that biocentrism at some point will be falsifiable through experiments. That isn't possible now. Right now the theory is a metaphysical one, in that it makes claims about the fundamental nature of reality which presently are not falsifiable. If we reach a technological point where the theory can be physically tested, then the theory will move from metaphysics into physics. We aren't there yet. -Jordgette [talk] 23:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not falsifiable now, not because of a lack of technology, but because it does not make falsifiable claims. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Agree with Jordgette and IRWolfie. In addition, interesting as the subject is, how/why is it a "theory of everything"? The article/book keeps saying it offers a deeper insight into scientific laws, to enter the observer in the equation, but how/why? Does/would it predict the outcome of every experiment explaining all forces for all space and time like a physical theory of everything would? M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 06:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

From my own brief skim of the book it contains no maths, so it can not predict anything of consequence. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree Mysticism is not correct. The theory, which one can agree with or not (and the validity of which will be determined by future research), is based on science. In my mind it's much closer to string theory (also controversial) than to astrology.Gyeffeth (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Gyeffeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I suggest re-reading the actual proposal and then commenting. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please be more civil. The editor is obviously referring to the references made above to “astrology” etc and to your erroneous claim that the theory is not based on science.Josophie (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree (with move); this theory is based on science and the maths of science are implicit. It is true that the term theory of everything or a grand unified theory is often conflated with a mathematical approach to unifying the four forces, but that need not be the only type of grand scientific theories. It may be helpful to recall that quantification is not the sine qua non of stating an hypothesis. Darwin had nary a number in his books, including origin of species. The book Biocentrism is putting forth a way of seeing science that is absolutely based on scientific findings and principles. Like Darwin, testing will come. There is a reference to the fact that Dr Lanza is not a physicist, but a medical/biological researcher. This placing physics above all else is limiting a bit arrogant and often distracting; perhaps his scientific background (which I share, so I am perhaps a bit biased) is more a strength than weakness. The book is after all centered on consciousness and life, both poorly addressed and defined by science, although the fields are maturing. As far as falsification,I agree it is somewhat reminiscent of string theory, which will, as far as we know now, never be sufficiently tested experimentally. As far as being testable in principle, as the sciences of consciousness and biology do progress, they may develop tools and ideas that will allow a formal testing, but in the mean time Drs Lanza and Berman do suggest something that can be falsified: they state our current theories can't work until the account for life and consciousness. Prove him wrong with TOE or GUT that does that! Rdlevinson (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)rdlevinson — Rdlevinson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's not comparable to string theory, afaik, the versions of string theory can be reduced to quantum mechanics and relativity where applicable. Thus they conform to current experimentation; they do make specific falsifiable claims (and many versions have been falsified). Biocentrism is not comparable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So can biocentrism (you obviously never read the mathematical analysis at the end of the book). Try reading the book before criticizing it.Josophie (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about, not much of a mathematical analysis from what I can see. Name a page number.IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. The sources quoted talk about a theory of everything or a theory of the universe. Until someone writes an article saying it is metaphysics why are we trying to shoehorn it into metaphysics? Looking at the definition in Theory of everything it says : "A theory of everything ... is a putative theory of theoretical physics". Lanza's argument is (paraphrasing) that he thinks this is wrong, it is not theoretical physics but biology. Whether he is right or wrong, as editors we should not be taking sides in this debate and saying that Lanza is wrong - which is exactly what we will be doing if we say Biocentrism is metaphysics rather than a theory of everything. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of the sources did you read? Note that most of the sources in the article are in fact primary sources. Primary sources by Lanza are not reliable for calling it a theory of everything. I checked every independent source, and I know they don't say it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree - Biocentrism (theory of everything) is a review of scientific methods in biology and quantum physics. This theory is clearly science and not philosophy. Theories in the book have been confirmed and are repeatable using scientific methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.143.7 (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Commment: There is no doubt that biological observers are important in the universe, because the very idea of "observers" are used extensively in the theory of relativity, and observers do affect quantum measurements. The very nature of measurements and observers are crucial to making and interpreting results of experiments, yet this article keeps asserting that biocentrism "enters the observer in the equation" without saying this is actually done. In what way does this make biocentrism a theory of everything? I don't have the book, but if it explains how biology "enters the equation" and uses mathematics to predict the outcomes of experiments, give the page numbers and clarify that in the article. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 09:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Commment: I think Lanza's is making the observation that observers are biological, and indeed you can't actually complete a physics experiment without a biological observer being present. Mainstream physics mostly ignores this, Lanza says it is of primary importance. Presumably that is what meant by "biology enters the equation". Lanza hasn't changed any physics, and uses quantum mechanics - probably going with the Copenhagen interpretation - so his theory/notion predicts the results of any experiment just as well as any modern textbook of quantum physics. Incidentally the criticism section of the article quotes Dr. Vinod Kumar Wadhawan and Ajita Kamal, whose piece [2] includes the revelatory quote that "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." The Copenhagen interpretation has not been discredited, and the remarks of Wadhawan and Kamalare on this are speculative, not scientific. They are as valid in fact as Lanza's speculations. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is it, a theory of everything or speculations? The secondary sources don't say it's a theory of everything, rather they say Lanza et al says what they believe would be required of a theory of everything. It is recognised that the Copenhagen interpretation is incomplete, but it's a good "working man's" model. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(was an edit conflict - I was answering IRWolfie's point above at the time) Anything newer than the Copenhagen interpretation in terms of interpreting quantum mechanics is speculation, because none of the speculations, including Lanza's, predicts anything different that can be experimentally observed. This is a specific criticism made of Lanza's work, but it is an unfair criticism as the same criticism can be made of all interpretations which have come after the Copenhagen interpretation, including e.g. the Many-worlds interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is different because (a) it was first, and (b) as you say it is a "working man's model" - i.e. it did not set out to be a neat theory but simply provide a framework to enable experimental results to be predicted, but nobody understood then or now what it is all about. Using the scientific method, no current interpretation offers any improvement over the Copenhagen interpretation since there is no experimental difference between any of them. Rather you choose between them based on whether you are an extreme materialist as Wadhawan and Kamalare, or an idealist like Lanza. To answer your specific question, Lanza's work is both speculative science and a philosophical theory - and has exactly the same scientific and philosophical status as e.g. the Many-worlds interpretation, which I note is scientific. To be consistent Lanza's work should also be treated as science. And the current (theory of everything) title is OK since it is clear Lanza has attempted to make it science based rather than a philosophical work. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be dodging the question; name a reliable secondary source that says it's a theory of everything. You are arguing that it's like an interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is philosophy not science. If you proposed Many world interpretation (theory of everything that would be incorrect. Do you understand what a theory of everything is meant to be? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

After a scan of the book (all I have time for right now), there is indeed no maths (apart from mentioning the odd relativistic formula), and most of the book is philosophical and less scientific. It's been said already, but it makes assertions called the "principles of biocentricsm" which just seem like speculation, rather than scientific and falsifiable assertions like the postulates of QM or relativity. (P.S. thanks again IRWolfie- for the pdf copy of the book). M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 07:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI I'm not a lawyer, but some friendly advice: Sending PDFs of the book like this is illegal and punishable by fines and/or jail time (its theft, like stealing music).Josophie (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful about making legal threats, see WP:NLT. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite the contrary--just wanted to call your attention to the copyright issue. Just trying to help!Josophie (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW Can you send a PDF of a book through Wikipedia? If not, this might be a violation of WP:CAN (stealth canvassing, contacting users off-wiki by e-mail). Josophie (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Complain about IRWolfie- using the email button here, watch out for the boomerang for frivolous complaints. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: On April 2, IRWolfie posted a message on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard asking for “Input from FTN regulars” about the title “and whether it promotes a fringe theory by calling it a theory of everything” He then goes on to say that Editors (who disagree with him) “appear to be trying to edit war rebuttals published in fringe/pseudoscience journals” To my mind, this might be considered canvassing for like-minded editors. Thus, I question how neutral some of the "Support Move" votes really are.Josophie (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing particular non-neutral about notifying a noticeboard of possible issues with an article; noticeboards are populated by people of all sorts, and in this particular instance the noticeboard that made sense was the noticeboard about fringe theories (on wikipedia this term means fringe claims in general). People are also allowed to give interested wikiprojects a shout, to try and draw people who know relevant policy and guidelines. My notice was very neutral, and I will paste it here wholesale: "There is a discussion about the accuracy of the title of Biocentrism (theory of everything) and whether it promotes a fringe theory by calling it a theory of everything, rather than referring to it as metaphysics. Editors also appear to be trying to edit war rebuttals published in fringe/pseudoscience journals at the article. Input from FTN regulars appreciated, " IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Biocentrism should not move. Start with this basic question: What is "sure" and not merely speculative or philosophical in the Lanza/Berman book? Well, though it may sound weird to those who have not thought deeply about it, it is inarguable that the "external" world occurs strictly inside our skulls. Indeed, on page 202 of the scholarly, scientific Canadian Observers Handbook (2011 edition, page 202) we find that Dr. Roy Bishop states, "Our visual world with its brightness and colors occurs within our skull." Physiology textbooks say the same. Now, if the so-called 'external world' (not the mere image, but the actual item)is within our skull, and yet our skull is also within the universe, this takes us inexorably to solipsism or oneness. Hard to grasp, given the dualistic or symbolic nature of language, but Biocentrism comes a lot closer to making this clear with its central thesis that "the observer and Nature are correlative", using biological and physical arguments and not mere semantics, than do currently taught viewpoints based on the old view that there is one "objective universe" "out there" beyond our bodies or perceptions, and a separate one perceived by the mind. It is only in this old view that we biological organisms are not required, and are sort of add-ons or afterthoughts in the cosmos. Lanza has taken science to a newer and more enlightened level. Biocentrism could be categorized as a "book" or a "theory of everything." But calling it mere "philosophy" would ignore all its science underpinnings, and relegate it to the vast pile of ideas that might include such pot-induced Freshman dorm speculations as that we all just part of some dream being dreamt by some giant omnipotent rabbit, or any other such trivial nonsense, based on nothing whatsoever. Being relegated to a mere "philosophical" category would be doing Biocentrism a grave injustice. 205.188.116.14 (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — 205.188.116.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The phrase "mere philosophy" is not helpful to this discussion. As someone above pointed out, skeptical materialism is, in every sense of the term, a metaphysical position. It is "mere philosophy." Someone else above compared biocentrism to a QM interpretation, saying it "predicts the results of any experiment just as well as any modern textbook of quantum physics." That's exactly what makes it metaphysics. Any (presently) untestable account of the fundamental nature of reality, be it Many Worlds, Bohmian mechanics, or biocentrism, is a metaphysical position. If biocentrism were mathematically formulated as a proper QM interpretation, then it would be further categorized as one, but it isn't. Therefore it is metaphysics. But if anyone finds this label somehow insulting or dismissive, that it reduces the theory to "mere philosophy," whatever that means, then you just don't like the word metaphysics and you need to get over it. -Jordgette [talk] 01:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support move per Mark Viking. To keep Wikipedia consistent and avoid confusing readers, we should respect the commonly accepted definitions of Theory of everything and Metaphysics. Biocentrism as described in this article clearly goes beyond physics and thus is a metaphysical theory rather than a physical one. Note that classifying biocentrism as metaphysics is in no way belittling or dispraising it, it just means that the scope of biocentrism is larger than that of physics. Arguing against the move because the proposed title doesn't sound valuable enough is not constructive in describing the topic, and rather dispraising towards metaphysics and philosophy in general. — HHHIPPO 16:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

But as I understand it Lanza is arguing against the commonly accepted definition of a theory of everything as being purely physics. And in Wikipedia I don't think we should categorize things against the subject's definition of themselves (backed up by reasonable sources of course) - because we then become a means of creating a reality rather than reporting on what is. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should stay neutral and not create a reality (or rather a language here). But that is exactly why we should use the commonly accepted definition of an expression we want to use for categorization. If there is a notable dispute about the definition of 'theory of everything', then this expression is unsuited for categorization of any subject. A subject's own definition of themselves should be mentioned in its article, but is not suited for putting it in a category, that is grouping it with other subjects which each might use a different definition. Just imagine what characters would otherwise be called "XXX YYY (Protector of world peace)" ;-) — HHHIPPO 12:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I don't disagree with a page move, however, can someone point me to a reliable third-party reference (or, preferably, quite a few) that states, specifically, that Biocentrism is a "metaphysical" theory? If the reason for the move is that we've assumed it is metaphysics from reading the book or think people may have implied it is metaphysics, then that would be Original Research. If we have solid, strong sources, where the consensus is that the theory is metaphysical, that would be appropriate. My concern is that because we are having trouble naming the article we may be relying on Original Research and assumptions to fill in the gap between our understanding of where the material fits into the world of ideas and its actual place. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Using metaphysics is not original research, particularly if consensus here supports it. We are drawing from the historically accepted understanding of what a metaphysical proposition is — a (presently) non-falsifiable description of the fundamental nature of something, one that cannot be experimentally distinguished from other such descriptions. That's what biocentrism is. As someone above pointed out, biocentrism does not yet satisfy the requirements of a theory of everything, and neither do the RS's describe it as such apparently (but that hasn't been a problem for some reason). Metaphysics is a better term, and it's probably the only appropriate term, until Lanza (1) creates a rigorous mathematical quantum-mechanical formulation, which would make it an interpretation, (2) designs a precise experiment that makes a new prediction, which would make it a physical theory, or (3) derives the fundamental constants of nature, which would make it a theory of everything. Until then it's metaphysics. -Jordgette [talk] 23:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see you're point, I'm just tenuous on using a term that is not generally and consistently associated with a subject, so wanted to bring the concern to the fore of this rigorous debate so that people might instruct me on it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Options? Perhaps we can come up with something neutral, something that doesn't declare it science or philosophy?? Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of taking sides on topics. Josophie (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria of a theory in philosophy according to Daniel Dennett. Calling it metaphysics doesn't make it a metaphysical theory. What closest to NPOV is calling it metaphysics, and that is giving it a damn sight more respectability than it deserves (according to the sources). Once enough comments are made, I will request an admin closure, so the obvious meatpuppets can be discounted. Discussions are not decided by vote counts. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

According to you, its not philosophy, its not science, and its not a theory (it seem you simply wish it didn't exist), which I understand since if biocentrism takes off in the future it could adversely impact your career and grant prospects when you graduate. Josophie (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That is purely ad hominem; considering the book relies on the work of physicists the entire time, that conspiratorial assertion doesn't even make sense. You are merely inviting this as a way of trying to dismiss why I would disagree with you to alleviate the cognitive dissonance that you are no doubt experiencing. I suggest you please read up on some basic science before proceeding. The idea that any sort of theory of everything, real or imagined, would effect my grant proposals is laughable. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You suggest "I read up on some basic science before proceeding" Not only is that insulting, but the reality is that I probably have a LOT more years of scientific training than you. All Editors on Wikipedia are equal hereJosophie (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I overreacted – I should have taken a few breathes before replying, and not replied to you using such personal language. To be clear, I fully understand your arguments (and those of the others here) who have a problem with Biocentrism (Theory of Everything). In that context, I am fully in support of the title move. However, this one doesn’t make any sense to me. I think a page move should be better handled and (to me at least) the page keeps moving constantly for seemingly no reason.Josophie (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree: I would prefer to change the title of the article itself to something like "Biocentric Universe" or something conceptual, as none of the bracketed categories seem definitive. We are talking about "what might be appropriate", and I'm not sure any bracketed term will be at this point. We should move the page to a noun like Biocentric Universe, or if we must use a bracketed term, I'd prefer "Biocentrism (consciousness theory)" as this is closer to what the book writes about and is supported by most sources. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with moving to Biocentrism (metaphysics) as classifying a scientific theory without supporting sources oversteps our role as editors. If we must move the article, I like Jeremy112233's proposal of Biocentric Universe or another title supported by sources. HtownCat (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Support two options Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, just a somewhat educated layman and I don't know the theory of biocentrism at more than a cursory level; I do however, have a background in philosophy and biology. With that said, from a philosophical standpoint this is a complicated question, much more so than it appears. Science is a tool and body of work based on a metaphysical perspective called Metaphysical naturalism, which stipulates certain basic axioms of the universe; the relevant aspects here are that science is based on the idea that the universe exists objectively, that it follows natural laws of cause and effect, that we as humans can observe it and gain knowledge by studying it. From one perspective, Biocentrism can be considered scientific in that it makes claims about the physical universe. Indeed, if biocentrism turns out to be valid, it would say a lot about the physical nature of the universe. However, the implications of this theory being valid on physics pales in comparison to the implications on metaphysics.

Biocentrism challenges one of the most fundamental aspects of metaphysics: the primacy of existence before consciousness. This, in and of itself, is not a scientific question because science is not equipped to investigate axiomatic aspects of the universe. Biocentrism is not primarily making scientific claims based on metaphysical naturalism (as all scientific claims are, by definition), instead it is making metaphysical claims that lead to an entirely different perspective on science itself - not just physics, not just biology, but science, and more importantly, the nature of existence itself. In this regard, Biocentrism is not primarily making physical claims, but metaphysical claims which have physical implications

Thus, I support a move to either Biocentrism (Metaphysics) or, Jeremy's idea, Biocentric universe, for his reasons. EDIT: Biocentrism (Ontology would work just as well. Sædon^talk 23:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Of these three, "Biocentric Universe" fits the facts best Josophie (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: In the above discussion, it is important to point out that falsification is only part of the story. Philosophers of science have argued about falsification for many decades. Susskind, a string theorist, discusses the limits of falsification, which has been only been applied as I understand it to certain areas of string theory, in his book “The Cosmic Landscape.” Lamark (and for that matter astrology) was falsifiable, Darwin, not so much at the time of the publication of Origin of Species (although the limits of falsifiablility are evident there: the famous chopping off the mouse tail experiment by Weissman in the 19th century was deeply flawed. Now with epigenetics and retroviruses and the role of lateral transmission of DNA in some organisms there is a mechanism for limited Lamarkian views). Wikipedia is not the place to decide the “orthodoxy” of the philosophy of science, the (often secondary) role of falsification and the limits of inductive reasoning (ask the turkey on thanksgiving or the black swan) and the role of mathematics as more than a thought experiment (you don’t need math to be impressed by the profundity and understand at least some of the implications of the two-slit experiment; also see the many criticisms of string theory as science who are physicists). For this decision, I would think that argument would be sufficient. Biocentrism is based on scientific principles and observations, not metaphysical ideas. The mathematics are implicit in the science alluded to. As far as predictions, I suspect there would have been no problem predicting and extending the interferometry experiments Zeilinger performed after the book was published using the principles of biocentrism, even though Zeilinger did not have Biocentrism in mind, and even if there are other more “orthodox” interpretations. In practice, biocentrism could probably also be used to test and predict the outcome of phenomena related to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, superposition, and relativity theory, not to mention the forces and laws of nature, consciousness, brain architecture and the design of artificial intelligence systems, including predictions in many other branches of science. Philosophy and metaphysics cannot do that! Josophie (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Biocentrism is based on scientific principles and observations, not metaphysical ideas" -- This is a misunderstanding. Biocentrism is a metaphysical proposition that is based on scientific observations interpreted in a particular manner. It presently cannot be used to test or predict anything in order to distinguish itself from existing physical theories. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so until such time that biocentrism can test or predict something, it is a metaphysical theory, and that's all there is to it. -Jordgette [talk] 00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats's incorrect. Since biocentrism was proposed, it has already successfully predicted the interferometry experiments Zeilinger performed after the book was published using the principles of biocentrism. If the results had turned out differently, biocentrism would have been shown to be wrong. In fact, it predicts the odd results of special relativity (on clocks and measuring-rods), but without failing altogether when it comes to experiments on the quantum scale. BTW Did you read my comment about falsification above? Josophie (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if that were true, then biocentrism would be a straight-up theory and we wouldn't be having this discussion. What were the specific predictions described in the book (we need page numbers), and what Zeilinger result are you talking about? Also, "predicting the odd results of special relativity" is not a prediction, it is a retrodiction (see Nostradomus), an interpretation of existing observations. If the claim is that it's a better explanation for observations, but this explanation cannot be experimentally distinguished from other explanations, then it's metaphysical. There are thousands of these so-called theories all over the internet, claiming to "predict" the Pioneer anomaly, dark energy, etc., and they're all useless. A proper scientific theory predicts a result before it is tested; that is precisely what makes a good theory useful and interesting. -Jordgette [talk] 23:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know when this will close, but I thought I'd add one other thing in--Biocentric universe is already a long-time redirect to this page, so the community has already agreed that this is an appropriate title to the page. Moving this page to that instead of Biocentrism (metaphysics) would be far less controversial, and I'm not sure anyone would disagree with that more, whereas the metaphysics title is indeed a bit of a controversy here--perhaps as much as the theory of everything title. If someone does disagree with that move, of course, I'd love to hear why :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus isn't based on numbers, it's based on quality of arguments. The SPA voters are likely to be discounted as such. The consensus from uninvolved editors is pretty clearly in favour of the move. I'll request an admin close after the designated discussion time. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. It should also be noted that this RFC itself was posted by a SPA IP-address as well :) I do find that a little bit odd. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm ok with your suggestion for Biocentric universe. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.