See biocentricity.net, where there are very good explanatory texts and specially short videos of them. It gets deep in describing the theory, framing physics problems that could be better resolved, but it is very weak at proposing implementations. The fine tunning also need and have our life expressed in simplified main categories (lists of 2, 3 and then many more infinite to our perception capabilities but not infinite themselves) where artificial intelligence (the proposed but non specified implementation) will endure them.
“Life’s possible role as a fundamental agent in the configuration of the observed universe, therefore, ought to be seriously considered.”
“Life creates the universe, rather than the other way around”
First he refers to Life as a complex or biological life, and in the second he refers to Life as the fine tunner without implying reciprocity. It will be politer (non rival) to say: Our life shows the fine tunning that is posibly creating other universes or Lifes abroad.
“As observers, we have no control over when or where such potentials, large or small, become realized.”
We have no control, but they are being realized (evolution shows a pattern).
“A unique beginning out of many possible beginnings, rather than the universe beginning in one specific way that was “fine-tuned” all along.”
A uniqueness enough fine tunned to be able to reach This. But yes, it wasn’t manipulated by some free willers in the middle of the journey. Such interventions were also fine tunned.
“Intelligent, directed creation necessarily calls for complex beginnings. No complex creator or designer is necessary in a biocentric universe.”
The fine tunning is the more complex event. You can call the fine tunner a Person, despite abuses of monotheistic religions with the word God and the finne tunner being in a reciprocal relation with us. (Karl the theorist, is a declared atheist, he has put his prejudices here in this stand)
Complex and and simple are not “bad” or “good”… All is a simplified complexity.
“The universe, like π, can be understood most elegantly as a relation.”
Specially because no matter or form is separated from the rest. “Reciprocal” ( as in PAP or Interactus) hits this same stand more beautifully.
“Biocentricity predicts that the entire universe outside of the Solar System will be found to be effectively sterile.”
It is alive, we may be a part of bigger life that is relationing with us for giving birth to paranormal things here in earth, out of the solar system within this galaxy or others and even in other universes (Family lineaging theory from the multiverse theory from David Deutsch)… so it doesn’t need to be sterile.
Addon for interactus
“The universe is incredibly complex not because it just is, but rather, because the biological organisms observing it have become incredibly complex. The observable universe is unique to our particular lineage of biology, including the earliest observations in the universe’s history. Perhaps this manifests to us in the form of this bizarre anomaly. If so, what an amazing clue it is!
Biocentricity can account for inanimate objects functioning as “observers”: Particle detectors, digital cameras, and the like are information-seeking tools that are designed and built by biological beings. There are multiple observers in the world, but they all observe the same world. Doesn’t this point to a world that is external and independent of observers?
Yes, it does! Which is why, for thousands of years, an external, observer-independent world has been assumed. But Einstein’s relativity, followed by the discovery of quantum phenomena and its bizarre experimental findings, have given us reason to question this assumption.
It is certainly true that everyone experiences the same course of events in the world. In the biocentric view, this makes perfect sense because all biological observers are directly linked, genetically as well as through a continuous chain of reproductive physical interactions between parent and offspring, and thereby constitute a kind of common observer — a superorganism that is correlated to one and only one course of universal events. (This is explained in Part 4 of our video series.)
Just as the universe is 100% consistent for one individual, so must it be 100% consistent for all observers from the same biological lineage.We see those galaxies today; we do not see them five or ten billion years ago. We say they are billions of years old, or more accurately we are seeing them now as they were billions of years ago. The galaxies are analogous to individual electron positions being observed when we look for them within the electron cloud.
CMB is an observable phenomenon that can be interpreted as evidence for a real Big Bang 13.7 billion years in the past — but only if you assume that matter and energy are absolute and independent of observation, and therefore pre-existed in the same form prior to the emergence of life.
There is one tantalizing fact about the CMB, however: When the CMB data (rigorously interpreted and corrected) is transformed into a large-scale map of the whole sky,
the fluctuations in the temperature of that background radiation — originating over 13 billion light-years away — eerily line up on opposite sides of the ecliptic,
the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Although such distributions were predicted to be purely random across the sky, statistical studies show that the pattern is not a result of chance (to within 99.9% confidence). Even stranger, there is no such correlation of the CMB with the plane of our galaxy, or any other astronomical plane. While the mapping of the CMB in general was a huge success for cosmology, this particular unexplained fact verges on embarrassing and has been dismissed by some as an error. But the data is robust, with dozens of researchers over the past seven years searching for an overlooked factor and coming up empty.
There may be a biocentric explanation: The first biologically observed astronomical motion almost certainly involved what we now call the Sun, moving across (what we now define as) the same plane of the sky. Our modern observations of the deepest reaches of space may be constrained to be consistent with all previous observations”