We're not purely physical.
..."We assume there's a universe "out there" separate from what we are, and that we play no role in its appearance. Yet since the 1920s, experiments have shown just the opposite; results do depend on whether anyone is observing. This is most vividly illustrated by the famous two-hole experiment. When you watch a particle go through the holes, it behaves like a bullet, passing through one hole or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through both holes at the same time.
This and other experiments tell us that unobserved particles exist only as "waves of probability" as Max Born demonstrated in 1926. They're statistical predictions -- nothing but a likely outcome. Until observed, they have no real existence; only when the mind sets the scaffolding in place can they be thought of as having duration or a position in space. Experiments make it increasingly clear that even mere knowledge in the experimenter's mind is sufficient to convert possibility to reality..."
I just had to share this thought-provoking article by Dr. Robert Lanza, MD and "theoretician," "What Are We? New Experiments Suggest We're Not Purely Physical."
Now I must get his new book, "Biocentrism," which seems to be available at Barnes & Noble, but not at Amazon.com right now. Thanks to mentor and friend Robyne Turner for this.
No comments:
Post a Comment