Comments on: Kant and Biocentrism

By: Darwiniana » Biocentrism and QM

Darwiniana » Biocentrism and QM — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:13:35 +0000

[...] Two comments on Kant and biocentrism James said, November 8, 2009 at 11:16 am · I haven’t read the book, but I always find myself unimpressed with these theories that use QM to argue that life and consciousness are the creators of “reality.” In a sense, I don’t really think there is anything weird about QM; to me, it just seems to indicate that our Newtonian (and maybe Einsteinian) ideas of time, space, locality, etc. are rather naive. Time and space may be constructions of our perceptual faculties, but that certainly doesn’t lead to the conclusion that “differentiation” of some sort doesn’t exist objectively. ———————————– Stephen P. Smith said, November 8, 2009 at 12:33 pm · Amit Goswamii`s “Self Aware Universe” provides a good avenue to unit QM with a transcendental idealism that Goswamii calls monistic idealism. Goswamii has other book too that are worthy of reading. [...]

By: Stephen P. Smith

Stephen P. Smith — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:33:19 +0000

Amit Goswamii`s “Self Aware Universe” provides a good avenue to unit QM with a transcendental idealism that Goswamii calls monistic idealism. Goswamii has other book too that are worthy of reading.

By: James

James — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:16:41 +0000

I haven’t read the book, but I always find myself unimpressed with these theories that use QM to argue that life and consciousness are the creators of “reality.” In a sense, I don’t really think there is anything weird about QM; to me, it just seems to indicate that our Newtonian (and maybe Einsteinian) ideas of time, space, locality, etc. are rather naive. Time and space may be constructions of our perceptual faculties, but that certainly doesn’t lead to the conclusion that “differentiation” of some sort doesn’t exist objectively.