Yeesh! That "Biocentrism" article does not belong under the "Science" heading. Maybe "New-age Pseudoscience", but not science.
Agreed. It's an interesting read, but the authours seem unwilling to acknowledge a few key issues like the tools we use to make these determinations are still very limited. It wasn't that long ago when the world was flat, and the universe revolved around the earth. When we've come to a place where people are beginning to question our most solid theories doesn't mean they're entirely in doubt, simply that we didn't know enough about them in the first place, and we'll still learning as we go along.
Saying that everything exists only as a probability by way of the observer is ludicrous at best. We know life existed long before man and will continue long after we're gone. The universe doesn't exist predicated on our interaction with it. The whole thing smacks of a creationist point of view gussied up to sound viable, when what they're saying is 'It's all so big and complex that we don't fully understand it so something must have created it for it all to work the way it does.'
Picard said it best..."Considering the marvelous complexity of the universe, it's clockwork perfection, it's balances of this against that, matter, energy, gravitation, time, dimension - I believe that our existence must be more than either of these philosophies. That what we are goes beyond Euclidean or other practical measuring systems, and that our existence is part of a reality beyond what we understand now as reality."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."