Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This has been one of the most disappointing books I have read in a long time. As a theoretical physicist, who has studied the core subjects of relativity and quantum theory for over 50 years, I am well aware of the conceptual problems of this central science. I am also increasingly impressed by the major successes of biology since 1945, so I am convinced that physics has had its day, while biology will be the central science for the forseeable future. It was from this perspective that I expected some impressive insights from a book with this ‘biological’ title that promised a major shift in worldview. Although this book was written by a brilliant biologist, most of this book is a rehash of POPULAR modern physics and astronomy. The focus is on the conceptual challenges raised by quantum physics experiments, although neither author could have spent much time studying these esoteric activities while building strong reputations in their own extensive fields of expertise (cellular biology and astronomy). Their approach is to re-establish medieval Catholic theology, wrapped in the vocabulary of modern science. They believe that returning to the 18th century ‘rationalist’ philosophy that: “reality is perception” – a view initiated by John Locke and made famous by Bishop Berkeley – will solve the deep problems of physics and cosmology. The authors here state boldly that: “without perception, there can be no reality” [p.16]. They even go so far as to suggest that the moon no longer exists when no one is looking at it – confusing knowledge of reality with reality itself. Indeed, a blind man will still die from walking off a high cliff that he did not see. A more useful definition is that reality is what still interacts with us, even when we do not believe in it. Claiming everything is in our heads is just a return to the old idea of solipsism. If animal senses were not well-tuned to reality, it is difficult to see that few would ever survive to propagate their kind for millennia. Fortunately, only one species ever fills its head with symbolic nonsense. In contrast, materialist scientists believe that there are real objects ‘out there’ (beyond our own heads) that have existed long before humans and will still exist when humans have disappeared from the universe. The modern physics project (since 1900) has adopted the reductionist ‘substance’ approach; first identifying atoms (too small to see directly) and then even smaller components, such as electrons, protons and neutrons. This process has continued down to the mysterious quarks (never to be isolated) but, at least, mathematically considered to further consist themselves of magical “strings”. This approach has not helped us to understand the reverse process: how larger compositions occur (synthesis) because the classical force-field concept crashed on the reef of the infamous “three-body problem” that was first uncovered by Isaac Newton and continues to sink attempts to build quantum models of even two electron systems such as the helium atom. Incidentally, how quark theory, based on combinations of three, strongly interacting objects, overcomes this hurdle is never discussed. The “solution” used throughout this book is to describe a major problem in physics and then declare that this is ‘solved’ by biocentrism WITHOUT providing any details beyond the declaration that this is a new “principle”. What I expected to see was some biological insight applied to each situation but all we get is some empty words – the worst approach of beginning philosophers. For example, most physicists would admit they have no explanation for the Origin of Life but simply claiming: “this is an intrinsic property of the universe” does NOT provide much help; this cannot be viewed as a scientific statement. Another complex problem, human consciousness, has also defied scientific analysis so far but this too is readily “solved” by claiming that the universe itself is conscious or ‘alive’ hence: “biocentric”. Even cosmological problems, like the Big Bang, are examined and found wanting, such as: “What happened before the Big Bang?” Of course, biocentrism offers no answers either to such (pseudo?) problems. A major problem with much modern physics is that too many people, including the authors here, still try to view the world of electrons and light in terms of macro concepts, such as: billiard balls & light waves. Theorists mostly know these concepts do not apply, which is why they retreat into a purely mathematical approach. The major problem with quantum mechanics is that it was designed to be a theory OF measurement (not a theory of EXISTENCE), so it must eventually be perceived by humans, who review the equipment ‘outputs’ in the form of numbers, which are another human construct (contra Plato). These authors also bring an unusual use of language, calling space-time an ‘entity’, whereas it is more usefully used to refer to independent examples of existence. No mention is made of major philosophers, like Kant, who proposed that concepts like space and time were verbal primitives used by humans to organize their mental models. Wildly, they believe that quantum particles actually only exist as probability waves; no problem for biocentrism as these waves are only a mathematical (or mental) construct. Furthermore, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics “strongly supports biocentrism” [p.58] but no details are offered. Psychological assumptions are slipped in throughout the book, such as: “Looking around, we see only our own mind”. I do not know about other readers but I have yet to SEE my own mind but I like to think that I sometimes ‘KNOW my own mind’. No discussion is ever raised herein that even electrons may have ‘far awareness’ across both distant space or time (‘advanced interactions’). The religious motivation of these authors (Lanz readily admits to his catholic upbringing near Boston) only emerges in chapter 9, where they discuss the Anthropocentric models of the universe, concluding (again, without any evidence) that: “the universe is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self”. Another religious obsession is the fear of death (chapter 19), where the authors admit that: “If I am only my body, then I must die (but) if I am my consciousness, then I cannot die for consciousness may be expressed in manifold fashion – ultimately unconfined.” Here, a primitive analogy of energy is misused (“Energy can never die”.) whereas in reality, energy and momentum are transferred between separate objects. This false idea of “energy-identity” is used to reassure Dr. Lanza that his recently dead sister “is going to look fabulous the next time I see her”. [p.193] Ironically, the authors view the most valuable aspect of biocentrism as “helping us decide: what not to waste time with – such as trying to understand the universe as a whole” [p.162] when it would seem that most scientists have decided not to waste their time investigating biocentrism. Potential readers may take this review as a warning in this regard. It can be seen that these authors (and perhaps most readers) would benefit from taking a course in the history of philosophy to clarify their thinking and understand that problems of existence (ontology) and human knowledge (epistemology) have a long history.