--- In [email protected], "wayback71" <waybac...@...> wrote: > > Judy, I read the links and like Penrose's idea that > gravity collapses the wave function and results in a > solid and fairly stable world. I had even wondered if > some huge Consciousness kept things solid - somehow > trying to merge the info from our sense with the idea > that we create the universe in consciousness! But > gravity sounds more rational, for sure.
The article was published in June 2005; the guy who is running the experiments designed to test Penrose's idea said it would be at least four years before they had any results. I'd be really curious to have an update. > Lanza's biocentrism is based on the Copernican (That's Copenhagen; Copernicus didn't know from quantum mechanics! I just looked it up--it's called the Copenhagen interpretation because it was first developed by Bohr and Heisenberg when they were working together in that city.) > understanding of quantum physics and assumes that if > you are not looking at something, it reverts to the > wave status and is no longer really there or observable. > Just so far out there. Einstein didn't much like it either. But if I had to pick between that and the "many worlds" interpretation, I'd go with Copenhagen. All the various interpretations are just screwy to the max (with the possible exception of Penrose's, but we'll have to see what happens with the experiments). Richard Feynman said of quantum mechanics: "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." I adore Feynman, but it's really hard *not* to want to try to figure how it can be like that. I wonder sometimes whether he wasn't talking to himself as much as everybody else.
