A worldview is a important determinative factor for the acquisition of knowledge, that influences a man deep in everything what he does and think. It depends on the personal and collective worldview if one can be successful in any field of activity.

Geocentrism
There was a time when humankind generally believed that the “Earth is the center of the universe and other objects go around it”.

Two common observations were believed to support the idea that the Earth is in the center of the Universe:
The first observation is that the stars, sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth each day, with the stars circling around the pole and those stars nearer the equator rising and setting each day and circling back to their rising point.
The second is the perception that as the Earth is solid and stable it is not moving, but is at rest.

Heliocentrism
Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun was first proposed in the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos. However, it was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the Copernican Revolution. In the following century, this model was elaborated and expanded by Johannes Kepler and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei.

Science undergoes periodic “paradigm shifts” instead of progressing in a linear and continuous way.
Thomas Kuhn

Revolutions in Science
Only after the acceptance of the heliocentric worldview many discoveries was made possible due the fact that a big obstacle in the understanding was removed. Now the earth was not anymore the center of the universe, but a planet orbiting the sun and in fact suspended on nothing. (Job 26:7-9)

One revolution after the other was made since then. Every revolution was fundamental for the next revolution. The progress was determined by so many factors in the mind and hearts of the people. Most of the obstacles was removed naturally by the death of their opponents (“Progress happens one funeral at a time”). Other obstacles was removed by the urgent necessity for a change, when the collective accepted a new paradigm in consensus, overrunning the mainstream scientists of that days ignoring their skepticism and protests. And some of the obstacles was removed by introducing new ideas into the collective mind, inserting specific keywords into the noosphere, in order that the broader resistance against the new discovery was lowered. Some of this “keywords” was introduced intentional, some emerged out of the collective consciousness because the time was right.

These paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding that scientists would never have considered valid before.
Thomas Kuhn

The World Set Free
To make an example how an idea can change the world I want to mention H. G. Wells novel “The World Set Free”, published in 1914. The book is considered to foretell nuclear weapons.

Scientists of the day were well aware that the natural decay of radium releases energy at a slow rate over thousands of years. The rate of release is too slow to have practical utility, but the total amount released is huge. Wells’s novel revolves around an (unspecified) invention that accelerates the process of radioactive decay, producing bombs that explode with no more than the force of ordinary high explosive— but which “continue to explode” for days on end. “Nothing could have been more obvious to the people of the earlier twentieth century,” he wrote, “than the rapidity with which war was becoming impossible… [but] they did not see it until the atomic bombs burst in their fumbling hands.” Leó Szilárd acknowledged that the book inspired him to theorize the nuclear chain reaction!

H. G. Wells inspired scientists of his time to use the power of the atom. Indeed if he has not introduced into the collective mind the idea of an nuclear weapon, this world today would be for sure a different one. Imagine what will happen if a whole new worldview will be accepted by the masses!

From ancient Atomism to the dreamlike Quantum World

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or, the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that all things are made of atoms- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.
Richard Feynman

With the discovery of the Quantum Mechanic many puzzling properties becomes evident to the scientists. Particles was all the time so stable in a mechanical world and suddenly we entered a dream like world, a kind of “Alice in Quantumland“. What happened? Science discovered that consciousness can influence matter. Photons and particles reacts on the observation, as if they are aware that someone watch them.

Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full “objectivity” – we must account for subjective perspectives as well.
Thomas Kuhn

Strange Quantum World
Quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, non-locality and virtual particles has changed the worldview of an entire generation of scientists. All the strange phenomenas was not considered previously by materialistic scientists, because the common behavior of biased humans is to ignore what doesn’t fit into their worldview. Most people, not only scientists, has this attitude to shield themselves subconsciously against any knowledge that could be a thread against their worldview. They evaluate the information in their subconscious, considering if this piece of information would change their lifestyle, their awareness for their responsibility. And if it doesn’t fit into their worldview (self created reality) then they even change the topic of a conversation without being aware of it. Or they drop something or they become angry without knowing why! This behavior is a kind of animal instinct, not the behavior of a divine-consciousness-aware being. Humility is so important in the process of knowledge achievement.

Quantum Zeno effect
The quantum Zeno effect is a name coined by George Sudarshan and Baidyanath Misra of the University of Texas in 1977 in their analysis of the situation in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. One can nearly ”freeze” the evolution of the system by measuring it frequently enough in its (known) initial state.

Is this phenomenon not electrifying? Observing a unstable particle it will never decay! This is like one observes a cooking pot and the water will never begin to cook. This reminds me of a group of invisible beings observing the water molecules in the red sea during the crossing of the Israelites. The result was that the water divided and the Israelites was able to cross over to the other site of the sea.

The quantum Zeno effect (with its own controversies related to measurement) is becoming a central concept in the exploration of controversial and unproven theories of quantum mind consciousness within the discipline of cognitive science.

Quantum mind
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness, and suggests that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain’s function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

There have been various attempts to validate the idea of quantum states being involved in neural processing. Professors Friedrich Beck and John C. Eccles developed a model for quantal emission process at the synaptic cleft with reasonable results. These authors also discussed in detail the problem of elementary microscopic processes in protein complexes able to survive thermal fluctuations. Evidence for quantum processing was also claimed by the physicist Evan Harris Walker.

Quantum mind–body problem
The quantum mind/body problem refers to the philosophical discussions of the mind/body problem in the context of quantum mechanics. Since quantum mechanics involves quantum superpositions, which are not perceived by observers, quantum mechanics apparently places observers in a special position.

The founders of quantum mechanics debated the role of the observer, and of them, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg believed that it was the observer that produced collapse. This point of view, which was never fully endorsed by Niels Bohr, was denounced as mystical and anti-scientific by Albert Einstein. Pauli accepted the term, and described quantum mechanics as lucid mysticism.

Many-minds interpretation
The many-minds interpretation of quantum mechanics extends the many-worlds interpretation by proposing that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the mind of an individual observer. The concept was first introduced in 1970 by H. Dieter Zeh as a variant of the Hugh Everett interpretation in connection with quantum decoherence, and later (in 1981) explicitly called a many or multi-consciousness interpretation. The name many-minds interpretation was first used by David Albert and B. Loewer in their 1988 work Interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation.

Now somewhere between this theories a paradigm shift occurs, switching the worldview from “I observe a external world” to “I create the external world inside my mind”. This is the point where “Biocentrism” comes into the play.

Biocentrism … or How to Give Your Baby a Name

Out of all this theories, experiments and observations a new “Theory of Everything” emerge. Biocentrism is not a whole new theory. The idea that the consciousness is the very center of the “universe” is not new. It has other names like “The Primacy of Consciousness” as proposed by Peter Russell and Ervin Laszlo for example. But Robert Lanza has done a good work, giving the new born baby a name and explaining why life creates the universe rather than the other way around.

Lanza argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson. He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it. According to a Discover magazine article adapted from Lanza’s book, “biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful unified field theories of eight decades ago.”

Lanza’s theory of biocentrism has seven principles:
1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An “external” reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

4. Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

5. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.

6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

From a materialistic science towards a spiritual science
Science leaves the old school of materialistic thinking and enters a spiritual world. The tendency to explain our existence with the “evolution lie” is remained unfortunately strong. This will be the next milestone the mainstream has to achieve towards a new paradigm shift. This world will need to make place for a new world, with global citizens that truly understand the very nature of our existence and will live in accordance with it, taking responsibility for every living creature.

A new world
This world has come to an end. Not the earth will be destroyed by God, but the system that supports egoistic people, materialism, false science and false religion, governments that loves to make war … and so on. In the view of a biocentric universe we can conclude that this war is not fight with weapons made of iron. This war is fight out on a spiritual level or dimension. Now the weapons can be identified as “public relation”, propaganda, mass media, false religions and dogmatism. We can actually observe the awareness of the collective consciousness, of the approach of an end of this world, in movies, forums, in newspapers, in all kind of media and art and religion. This is not a illusion. The awareness emerge because it will happen. It was foretold by prophecy.

The impact of the new world view on society
The implications of the insights deriving from a spiritual science will force the society to take a position towards the will of God or against it. Like every Truth it will hurt the ones that are opposed to it. We can be sure that we are living in truly interesting times!

See also:
- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn
- Biocentrism (cosmology) on Wikipedia
- Theory of every-living-thing
- Cosmology on Wikipedia
- Spiritual Science, a introduction

German Articles:
- Neues Weltbild gefälligst? Biozentrismus a la Robert Lanza!
- Biozentrismus – Die Biologie auf der Schwelle zu einer neuen Erklärung der Welt

Propaganda (share it)

Tags: Alice in Quantumland, Atomism, B. Loewer, Baidyanath Misra, biocentricity, biocentrism, cognitive science, consciousness, Copernican Revolution, Cosmology, cosmos, David Albert, decay, earth, Einstein, Ervin Laszlo, Evan Harris Walker, Galileo Galilei, geocentrism, George Sudarshan, H. Dieter Zeh, H. G. Wells, heliocentrism, Hugh Everett, Johannes Kepler, John C. Eccles, Leó Szilárd, life, Many-minds interpretation, matter, Nicolaus Copernicus, Niels Bohr, Noosphere, nuclear bomb, observer, paradigm shift, particle, Peter Russell, phenomena, photon, quantum entanglement, quantum fluctuation, quantum mechanic, Quantum Mind, Quantum mind–body problem, quantum superpositions, quantum tunneling, Quantum World, Quantum Zeno effect, renaissance, revolution, Richard Feynman, Robert Lanza, spiritual science, The Primacy of Consciousness, Thomas Kuhn, Universe, virtual particle, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, worldview