Biocentrism: What does it mean?

Some of you may be familiar with this term, yet it is not as widely known as others. Science and religion have been at odds in the past (Gailileo and the Catholic church anyone?). Even in more recent times, one might call the relationship uneasy. However, in the last 5 to 10 years, as our knowledge of the very small and very large grows deeper, science is beginning to reach an end point and the lines between the spiritual and science are becoming blurry, much to the dismay of certain members of both camps. Case in point: What made the big bang, go boom? If the entire unvierse was, at one time, smaller than the head of a pin, what caused the bang the brought us to our present state? Did it happen spontaneously, for no reason at all?

I personally have always seen them as two sides of the same coin, and it is interesting to see that now a book has been written that attempts to frame this discussion using a modicum of scientific data and research. The name of the book is Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to understanding the True Nature of the Universe. The authors, Dr. Robert Lanza and Bob Berman are no slouches when it comes to their credentials. Dr. Lanza is the Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology and has been lauded in US News and World Report. He is also an adjunct professor at Wake Forest University School of medicine. Bob Berman is an astronomer for both Astronomy Magazine and Discover magazine.

The central thrust of the book is this: Life created the universe, rather than the universe creating life. Sounds like poppycock, right? The book asserts that the universe has always been seen as an outside force from ourselves. We are here, the universe is outside of us, an externality. Like fish in a fishbowl, we exist swimming within the external world of the universe. However, the book asserts that we are essentially, the fishbowl itself. We are both the creator and the observer of the world we live in. Hold on folks, it gets weirder. Below are some of the examples listed in the book to back up this seemingly strange conclusion.

- A classic test called the "double slit" experiment involves shooting light through a two identical slits and watching the pattern they make on a detector set up behind. The light, as proven through multiple experiments, behaves differently when it is being observed than when it is not being observed. In other words, the light knows when someone is watching, and behaves accordingly...every single time. In other words, particles behave differently based solely on a human observers intention.

-A discussion of the "Goldilocks" idea that the universe, the outcome of which was the result of an infinite number of possibilities of chemical, physics, etc, formed perfectly to create life...purely by chance. Any gambler would tell you the odds of that happening, of it being "just right" for life given the number of possible outcomes is almost statistically impossible as a random occurrence. The universe is fine tuned for life at the smallest levels of matter.

-The smallest particles can transmit information to each other faster than the speed of light over enormous distances, in apparent violation of Einsteins' law

-space and time are only properties of the perceiving organism(us) and do not exist outside of that context.

- The universe was created to observe itself through us.

So, that is probably enough to keep your head spinning for quite some time. I read the book 6 months ago, reread it, and am still trying to fully grasp it. I would imagine many scientists who are familiar with the work would question much of it. My interest is only to present the ideas for your review. Those among you who don't like dense science content may not appreciate the book, but I have linked to several reviews and Amazon for those interested.

Here is the Amazon page

Here is a review of the book.

-