By Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra
This year, the world celebrated Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. But now that all the backslapping is nearing an end, it may be time to reflect on where things really stand. When Darwin finished writing "Origin of Species" in the fall of 1859 -- exactly 150 years ago -- the theory of evolution became part of the Newtonian world picture. However, since that time, major puzzles of mainstream science have forced a re-evaluation of the nature of the universe that goes far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.
One new theory -- called biocentrism -- proposes that an accurate understanding of the world requires putting observers firmly into the equation, and that life may not be the accident of physics and chemistry that evolution suggests (Lanza and Berman, Biocentrism, BenBella, 2009). In short, the attempt to explain the nature of the universe, its origins, and what is really going on, including evolution, requires an understanding of how the observer -- consciousness -- plays a role.
The current model proposes that the universe was until rather recently a lifeless collection of particles bouncing against each other, and obeying predetermined rules that were mysterious in their origin. The universe is presented as a watch that somehow wound itself and that, allowing for a degree of quantum randomness, will unwind in a semi-predictable way. But there are many problems with this paradigm -- some obvious, others rarely mentioned but just as fundamental. But the overarching problem involves life, even if the way it changes forms can be apprehended using Darwinian mechanisms.
Why, for instance, are the laws of nature exactly balanced for life to exist? There are over 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that it strains credulity to propose that they are random -- even if that is exactly what contemporary physics baldly suggests. These fundamental constants (like the strength of gravity) are not predicted by any theory -- all seem to be carefully chosen, often with great precision, to allow for existence of life. Tweak any of them and you never existed.
Beyond these laws and constants, consider everything that had to happen to bring about humans. There are literally trillions of events that had to be just right -- 'this way' and not 'that way' -- for us to be here. Consider the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs -- if its trajectory had been slightly different, or the asteroid had been slightly larger, we might not be here. The odds are astronomically against everything happening exactly right. So the question is, is it dumb luck? But if you say something is an accident, it usually means you don't understand the reason for it.
Being here may be no more an accident than the sun rising in the morning. Perhaps biocentrism is right -- perhaps the past is simply the spatio-temporal logic of the observer. No physicist challenges the fact that particles do not exist with definite physical properties until they are observed. If the present determines the past as Stephen Hawking, John Wheeler (who coined the word 'black hole'), and others have suggested, then it couldn't be any other way.
Darwin's theory of evolution is an enormous over-simplification. It's helpful if you want to connect the dots and understand the interrelatedness of life on the planet -- and it's simple enough to teach to children between recess and lunch. But it fails to capture the driving force and what's really going on.
It is time to step back and take a look at the big picture. Evolution reminds us that we evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries, not to ponder the nature of life itself. The challenge, alas, is to peer not just behind our ancestral way of thinking, but to grasp the world in a way that is at the same time simpler and more demanding than what we are accustomed to.
Published in the San Francisco Chronicle
Robert Lanza, MD is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is the author of Biocentrism-Consciousness-Understanding-Nature-Universe
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Robert Lanza, M.D.: Anything Beyond The Universe? New Theory Changes Our Destiny
"Evolution reminds us that we evolved in the forest roof to collect fruit and berries, not to ponder the nature of life itself."
As far as I know, evolution doesn't explain how we (and other animals, but especially us) are as advanced as we are, eg that we can ponder the nature of life. We're way beyond what we need to be in order to survive.
This is as yet unexplained, beyond the scope of the theory of evolution.
Here's my wild-ass conjecture:
The universe tends toward greater and greater disorder - entropy.
Once life is introduced, there's a tendency toward greater and greater order, organization, complexity - anti-entropy.
If this turns out to be true, I want my name put on it.
That is why the conditions we find are such a good fit with Life as we know it. It would be nice, of course, if there were deeper levels of meaning, information and experience available to us in this universe. Until we can predict and control the conditions under which such experiences might happen, it remains for future scientists to expand the theoretical basis for our world. Philosophy has a role to play in helping to understand and resolve the problems inherent in new forms of existence and experience, but religion has been tarnished by so much human baggage that it is relatively uesless as a tool for interpreting new information, much less interpreting our current states of affairs.
88melter
That question does not prove itself. I see life existing only because nature is balanced. Isn't that amazing enough to "worship?"
What kind of logic is that? This article assumes that supporting life and specifically humans was the purpose of this universe all along. The basis for this assumption?
I suppose Dr. Chopra knows something and is hiding it. In all this essay, I did not see anything that could be construed as an alternative, or a theory that the rest of scientific community could oberve let alone verify. I assume that he is talking about some spirit that drives it all to an objective of its own. Well, we mere mortals have a very limited goal - to understand what is observable and make sense of it. The theory of evolution itself has evolved over 150 years of its existence. It has a huge body of evidence to support it. This article from Dr. Chopra amounts to a sneer at this portion of science, the reason for which I do not understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA&feature=related
Physical laws may or may not have been "chosen" (a really bad choice of words), as this infers that there was a chooser. Maybe there was, or maybe there was not.
Our universe may have been a lucky break for us against all odds. It is possible. But it may be more probable that there was some agency that directed it. I actually go along with the more probable scenario.
The cynic in me would hypothesize that the reason for this is that he cannot as readily promote his books and blog to the people on a peer reviewed science site.
Physics has already been there, done that. Back in 1961 the Anthropic Principle was proposed.
There have been very incarnation suggested since then.
It basically says that the universe developed the way it did so that it could support that life of observers to comment upon it.
I meant to type
There have been various incarnations suggested since then.
Here is a decent explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
That's beautiful, thank you. If you know the universe as I do, it does not sound in the least dismissive.
The universe is.
How did it come to be?
How the hell should I know? I'm just a speck of dust.
And that's as far as I can go with it.