The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality
- Downloads：5700
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-01-04 09:51:27
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Robert Lanza
- ISBN：1953295800
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
What if life isn't just a part of the universe 。 。 。 what if it determines the very structure of the universe itself？
The theory that blew your mind in Biocentrism and Beyond Biocentrism is back， with brand-new research revealing the startling truth about our existence。
What is consciousness？ Why are we here？ Where did it all come from—the laws of nature， the stars， the universe？ Humans have been asking these questions forever， but science hasn't succeeded in providing many answers—until now。 In The Grand Biocentric Design， Robert Lanza， one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People，" is joined by theoretical physicist Matej Pavšic and astronomer Bob Berman to shed light on the big picture that has long eluded philosophers and scientists alike。
This engaging， mind-stretching exposition of how the history of physics has led us to Biocentrism—the idea that life creates reality-takes readers on a step-by-step adventure into the great science breakthroughs of the past centuries， from Newton to the weirdness of quantum theory， culminating in recent revelations that will challenge everything you think you know about our role in the universe。
This book offers the most complete explanation of the science behind Biocentrism to date， delving into the origins of the memorable principles introduced in previous books in this series， as well as introducing new principles that complete the theory。 The authors dive deep into topics including consciousness， time， and the evidence that our observations-or even knowledge in our minds-can affect how physical objects behave。
The Grand Biocentric Design is a one-of-a-kind， ground-breaking explanation of how the universe works， and an exploration of the science behind the astounding fact that time， space， and reality itself， all ultimately depend upon us。
The theory that blew your mind in Biocentrism and Beyond Biocentrism is back， with brand-new research revealing the startling truth about our existence。
What is consciousness？ Why are we here？ Where did it all come from—the laws of nature， the stars， the universe？ Humans have been asking these questions forever， but science hasn't succeeded in providing many answers—until now。 In The Grand Biocentric Design， Robert Lanza， one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People，" is joined by theoretical physicist Matej Pavšic and astronomer Bob Berman to shed light on the big picture that has long eluded philosophers and scientists alike。
This engaging， mind-stretching exposition of how the history of physics has led us to Biocentrism—the idea that life creates reality-takes readers on a step-by-step adventure into the great science breakthroughs of the past centuries， from Newton to the weirdness of quantum theory， culminating in recent revelations that will challenge everything you think you know about our role in the universe。
This book offers the most complete explanation of the science behind Biocentrism to date， delving into the origins of the memorable principles introduced in previous books in this series， as well as introducing new principles that complete the theory。 The authors dive deep into topics including consciousness， time， and the evidence that our observations-or even knowledge in our minds-can affect how physical objects behave。
The Grand Biocentric Design is a one-of-a-kind， ground-breaking explanation of how the universe works， and an exploration of the science behind the astounding fact that time， space， and reality itself， all ultimately depend upon us。
Reviews
Max
，
So overall this book is like a kid giving a book report without having read the book。 Lanza just repeats "the observer creates reality，" ad nauseam。 I don't think this is a thesis so much as a catchphrase or marketing slogan。 It certainly isn't original， but like in his first two books， Lanza keeps repeating it without going into the specifics of how it could work。 He dives into EITHER dry， complex formulas OR childishly simple folksy examples to give weight to the general mantra of "observer cr So overall this book is like a kid giving a book report without having read the book。 Lanza just repeats "the observer creates reality，" ad nauseam。 I don't think this is a thesis so much as a catchphrase or marketing slogan。 It certainly isn't original， but like in his first two books， Lanza keeps repeating it without going into the specifics of how it could work。 He dives into EITHER dry， complex formulas OR childishly simple folksy examples to give weight to the general mantra of "observer creates reality" again and again rather than making sense of it in clearly explained detail。 There's just no depth to his theory。 The book is ninety percent "We think things are objective， but they're not，" and ten percent "（incomprehensible college level math）"。 If you're willing to grant him his central claim， and see how he develops it， you'll be disappointed。 It's like he knows most people won't grant him that， even for the sake of argument， and refuses to cater to those who will。 It comes across as whiny and repetitive and shallow。After reading all three Biocentrism books， I literally don't even know if Lanza is himself a solipsist， is suggesting I should be a solipsist， or something else。 Hee's the closest I found him coming to addressing this rather major issue: >This has nothing to do with multiple， separate consciousnesses existing in the same world。 In each case of the wave function collapse， there is a different world with a unique， single consciousness。 In one such world， consciousness experiences the life of person A while all other persons are perceived as being “external” to A， as described in Chapter 7。 In another world， the same consciousness experiences the life of person B， while all other people and animals are， like trees， houses， and other inanimate things， perceived as being “external” to B。 But Lanza also says multiple observers are needed to keep reality behaving consistently。 So which is it？ How do the two ideas relate？ Is it like the pigeonhole theory by Fred Hoyle？ Lanza doesn't say。 I don't believe I've failed to understand his books -- or rather， I don't think Lanza understands them either。 If I mapped out how much time Lanza spends belabouring the basic， generations old idea of "observer creates reality，" vs how much he spends explaining how different observers can share one reality if we're all in our own worlds， it would be 。。。 well， just about all the book vs pretty much that one quote。 And that's being generous。In a very bad sign， Reddit doesn't care about this theory， not even the weirdest parts of Reddit。 Overall I don't think smart people are the least bit interested in this warmed-over double-slit mongering from yet another wannabe quantum mystic。 I'm embarrassed I read the first two Biocentrism books （I was younger then）， only got this one because it was two dollars， and sure won't be getting the next。 。。。more
Chris Basha
，
The writing is somewhat pretentious。 Also most of it reiterates things from the previous two books。
J。 M。
，
It will bend your mind， reframe your life， and inspire you to think hard about your place in this crazy universe。 Written by a stem cell biologist and theoretical physicist with a firm grasp of the science behind their words， it brings into question some of our most basic assumptions about ourselves and our world。 This book is a continuation of Lanza and Berman’s two prior books on Biocentrism—the idea that biology is fundamental to the universe。 ”You are actually creating space and time， not It will bend your mind， reframe your life， and inspire you to think hard about your place in this crazy universe。 Written by a stem cell biologist and theoretical physicist with a firm grasp of the science behind their words， it brings into question some of our most basic assumptions about ourselves and our world。 This book is a continuation of Lanza and Berman’s two prior books on Biocentrism—the idea that biology is fundamental to the universe。 ”You are actually creating space and time， not just operating within it like a character in a video game。”Ironically， the worldview that emerges from this book reminds me very much of one video game in particular: Minecraft。 Players wander around collapsing the quantum wave function of infinite possibilities and bringing entire chunks of the landscape into reality by the mere act of observation。 In Lanza’s world， just as in Minecraft， death is merely a gateway to an alternate version of yourself， where you wake up in bed with different memories。 ”When we die， we do so within a matrix of inescapable life。”Personally， I couldn’t buy into the multiverse-afterlife bit。 But the book also presents a wealth of incredible ideas that complement my hard-won， mystical worldview。 Space and time are emergent properties arising within the mindNot just space and time， but “reality” too， is relative to the observerMatter， like the past， exists as a blurred quantum foam until observed in the presentThe universe seems fine-tuned for life， possibly because it has to be for us to be hereIon dynamics in the brain might be the key to understanding the quantum properties of consciousnessIndividual separation is an illusion。 Everything and everyone is connected。The universe is “a web of information floating above the void of nonbeing” ”We are not separate from the things we see， hear， and contemplate。 Rather， we—nature and the observer—are some sort of inseparable entity。”It’s a feast of the sort of quantum mysticism I have heard physicists cringe at， yet it’s presented reasonably and convincingly， with surprising support drawn from most of the original founders of quantum theory （like Bohr， Heisenberg， Schrödinger， and others）。 Along the way， we are treated to bite-sized history reviews and comprehensible summaries of the key experiments in quantum mechanics。 ”Solipsism and the belief in universal oneness—”only self” and “no self”—aren’t as easy to separate as you might think。 After all， in a way， one leads to another。 They’re like the twisted strands of a single piece of thread。”The authors present our world as a product of our individual consciousness。 That’s a problem for me。 Returning to the Minecraft analogy: each player indeed contributes to the world， but the whole thing is running on transistors and code that are completely inaccessible to even the cleverest players。 The hardware， for us， is whatever this universe is built on—and I agree with the authors that mind is ontologically primary （matter is just our working model）—but it can’t all be generated by the individual brains of living creatures， as I think is claimed here。 The authors flirt with the concept of interconnectedness and oneness （as in the beautiful excerpt above）， but they stop short of exploring its implications。 If All is One， as the ancient mystics claim， and consciousness is ontologically primary， then the One is an unimaginably vast and powerful conscious Being。 The yogis and Buddhists and mystics of all religions who have studied this One describe it with words like fundamental awareness， world soul， and great spirit。 To me， it seems more fulfilling （and feels more true） that we rejoin this One when we die and our ego’s dream is over， rather than to live the same life endlessly through the multiverse （doomed to be ignorant of our cosmic prison）。 No。 As part of the Mind-At-Large， what would I think of my human life？ Probably nothing。 I’d be too wrapped in the bliss of Simply Being。 To me， it makes more sense to view the brain as an island of consciousness dissociated from the Whole。 Yes， it creates its own reality， but not from scratch。 It is subconsciously shaped by evolution and environment and history and culture to define a unique but constrained reality that will largely match the reality experienced by its human neighbor。 What most of these brains cannot fathom is that they are merely transient alters of the Mind-at-Large—they are momentary whirlpools in the river of the One which allow self to dance with Self。Instead， the authors focus exclusively on our individual consciousness as originators of the cosmos。 Humble mammalian brain ascends to god-like heights， plants are ignored， and all of nature bows to the centrality of the sensing， remembering， self-reflective organism。 It’s biocentrism as advertised。 It left me feeling—wrong—until I could write it all out like this。I’d recommend this book to my fellow seekers， but only with the disclaimer above。 。。。more
Paul Jones
，
I found this book a challenging but worthwhile read。 Will probably reread parts。 If Robert Lanza theory is right or partially right then the current scientific world view is turned over。 Although I’m am wanting to accept this theory I am not fully convinced and await future findings。 The first book Biocentrism was a easier less technical read。 If the theory is proven then Worth 10 stars。 I’ve gone with 4 stars。 I would certainly recommend this book to anyone with a curious open mind。
DREW BOOK REVIEWS
，
I tend to get a bit OCD when it comes to #dnf a book and have a really hard time doing so。 This book is testing the limits of that for me。 Dr。 Lanza seems to be taking the position that life created the universe by simply percieving its existence， and does so using #quantumphysics principles such as superposition and particles appearing once measured In addition to that he uses the common religious apologist argument of #finetuning combined with out of context quotes from physicst like einstein， I tend to get a bit OCD when it comes to #dnf a book and have a really hard time doing so。 This book is testing the limits of that for me。 Dr。 Lanza seems to be taking the position that life created the universe by simply percieving its existence， and does so using #quantumphysics principles such as superposition and particles appearing once measured In addition to that he uses the common religious apologist argument of #finetuning combined with out of context quotes from physicst like einstein， bohr， planck， shrodinger as an appeal to authority all in a effort to support his conclusion without any actual evidence。 He is trying to sell his philisophical position as science and has even brought in metaphyisics into his arguments and treating it as legit science rather than the abstract concepts it isI am only halfway through but 1 star for me 。。。more
Zee Monodee
，
Found this interesting， but though I'm not a total noob at science， this one did feel a bit hard to grasp。。。or else it was a lot of words as filler and the concepts buried in them。。。 As such， it wasn't an easy book to read not for the subject matter but for all the tangents and dallying around that did nothing to help in explaining the very concept this book wanted to illustrate and share with the general public Found this interesting， but though I'm not a total noob at science， this one did feel a bit hard to grasp。。。or else it was a lot of words as filler and the concepts buried in them。。。 As such， it wasn't an easy book to read not for the subject matter but for all the tangents and dallying around that did nothing to help in explaining the very concept this book wanted to illustrate and share with the general public 。。。more
Archie
，
you feel this kind of book should be written 50 years ago。。。。 quantum physics isn't even new any longer。。。 yet the "mainstream" scientists are still too shy/feared to talk about the "observer"。。。 you feel like the current Pope must be very powerful so that not many dare to follow the steps of Giordano Bruno。。。。 you feel this kind of book should be written 50 years ago。。。。 quantum physics isn't even new any longer。。。 yet the "mainstream" scientists are still too shy/feared to talk about the "observer"。。。 you feel like the current Pope must be very powerful so that not many dare to follow the steps of Giordano Bruno。。。。 。。。more
Mitch Olson
，
I got half way through and then belatedly I guess realised this guy is a idealist。 What’s with all these blimin dualists？ Bloody Descartes and his stupid splitting of the world into mind and matter。 The error of materialism is to think that matter is fundamental; the error of idealism is think that mind is fundamental。 Any models of the world built from these half truths is going to be wrong。 Stupid people don’t realise they are both part of a larger whole that includes both， as well as value。 T I got half way through and then belatedly I guess realised this guy is a idealist。 What’s with all these blimin dualists？ Bloody Descartes and his stupid splitting of the world into mind and matter。 The error of materialism is to think that matter is fundamental; the error of idealism is think that mind is fundamental。 Any models of the world built from these half truths is going to be wrong。 Stupid people don’t realise they are both part of a larger whole that includes both， as well as value。 The world is not dyadic; it’s a triadic。 。。。more
Tagnahoor
，
Panhandling in book form。 I really wanted for there to be something in this book and there is not。 Reading it made me feel like I was being polite to a junkie in downtown Hartford telling me he needed 45 more cents to take the bus up to Manchester to visit his son in jail -- you know one of those over long， over complicated stories that makes no sense and is designed to get you to give them the money just to make them shut up。 Yeah。 That's this book。I was intrigued by the idea of consciousness b Panhandling in book form。 I really wanted for there to be something in this book and there is not。 Reading it made me feel like I was being polite to a junkie in downtown Hartford telling me he needed 45 more cents to take the bus up to Manchester to visit his son in jail -- you know one of those over long， over complicated stories that makes no sense and is designed to get you to give them the money just to make them shut up。 Yeah。 That's this book。I was intrigued by the idea of consciousness being the whole point of existence。 But this author makes too many assumptions and calls them principles。 He also has a too frequent habit of saying it's all explained in an earlier book。 So， I've already spent too much of my time writing about this rip-off。 If the author reads this， well， don't do this again。 。。。more
Christine
，
Some major food for mind blowing thought here！ I thought the authors did a very good job of explaining their theory in a way that was accessible to the layperson， though it would probably be helpful to have at least a passing understanding of quantum mechanics （inasmuch as anyone can） before reading。 I haven't read the other two books， but they mentioned that they go over basic concepts in a little more depth。 If those books are as effective in communicating to the average reader as this one is Some major food for mind blowing thought here！ I thought the authors did a very good job of explaining their theory in a way that was accessible to the layperson， though it would probably be helpful to have at least a passing understanding of quantum mechanics （inasmuch as anyone can） before reading。 I haven't read the other two books， but they mentioned that they go over basic concepts in a little more depth。 If those books are as effective in communicating to the average reader as this one is I think they would be a good place to start。 I'm not completely sold on the ideas presented here but I can't imagine that anyone would be when they are first encountered。 It's wild stuff。 On a personal note this has given me much to think about when it comes to anomalies in spatiotemporal perception that I've experienced since having brain surgery。 It's not anything crazy but it's very interesting to my neurologist。 I'll be eager to discuss these ideas with him。 On the down side the fact that they tout biocentrism as the *definitive* explanation on the structure of the universe， which also resolves the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity， sets off my bullshit meter， whether it's warranted or not。 And maybe I missed the part where they talk about the question of "*why* we are here" but it didn't shed any light on the subject。 Not that it bothered me。 Outside of the possibility that we are living in a simulated reality， or are products of some external creator， I don't think the question is necessarily answerable。 I just don't understand why it was included in the blurb。 At any rate I found myself taking notes and thinking throughout the day about the concepts presented。 I imagine I will continue to do so and will most likely revisit some of the text。 It's the kind of stuff you want to talk about with others which is always the sign of a good book！ 。。。more
Owlseyes
，
https://www。psychologytoday。com/us/no。。。 https://www。psychologytoday。com/us/no。。。 。。。more
Daniel Hoffman
，
Outside my usual genre， and a lot of it over my head unless I had decided to really spend tons of time reading and re-reading very slowly， which I didn't do。 Basically， this book argues that mind/consciousness is the fundamental reality and the "physical world" exists entirely within it。 Much of this is dependent on standard quantum mechanics。Naturally， if I do ever read anything like this， I tend to try to relate it to theology。 What I got from this was that mind/consciousness as the fundamenta Outside my usual genre， and a lot of it over my head unless I had decided to really spend tons of time reading and re-reading very slowly， which I didn't do。 Basically， this book argues that mind/consciousness is the fundamental reality and the "physical world" exists entirely within it。 Much of this is dependent on standard quantum mechanics。Naturally， if I do ever read anything like this， I tend to try to relate it to theology。 What I got from this was that mind/consciousness as the fundamental reality fits pretty well with the priority of the Logos， and also that no one who embraces quantum mechanics with its paradoxical particle behavior can object that constructions like the Trinity are nonsense。 Things that seem contradictory， or things that cannot really be described or understood in words so much as approximated with accepted terminology， need not be rejected for that reason。 。。。more
Nick Parker
，
Thought provoking and fascinatingI thought this book did a great job at presenting a highly complex and esoteric set of concepts in a way that a layperson could hope to understand and enjoy them 。 I would recommend this book to someone who has a baseline notion of the basics of quantum theory， and is interested generally in science and philosophy。
Ray Rogawski
，
Great job！Allowing me the chance to grasp a hint of what is being delivered here to the reader。 Most of it flies way over my head but still is enlightening and peaks my interest as an old man to want to learn 。 Would surely rate it a five if I was smart enough to understand it better。
Josh reading
，
Wow， what mind blowing concepts， amazing and mind boggling at the same time。 Having read Robert Lanza’s previous volume “Beyond Biocentrism” I knew he basic ideas that this book would contain。 Biocentrism is a scientific theory that places consciousness in a position of supreme importance in the grand scheme of the cosmos。 We as conscious observers determine the shape of reality。 This is pretty intense stuff and very different from what most of us have learned in physics regarding the classic mo Wow， what mind blowing concepts， amazing and mind boggling at the same time。 Having read Robert Lanza’s previous volume “Beyond Biocentrism” I knew he basic ideas that this book would contain。 Biocentrism is a scientific theory that places consciousness in a position of supreme importance in the grand scheme of the cosmos。 We as conscious observers determine the shape of reality。 This is pretty intense stuff and very different from what most of us have learned in physics regarding the classic model of the universe。 Truly though， this was a very interesting and unique read。 One does not necessarily have to agree with the researchers’ positions but it really could get you thinking about the unknowns of the universe and our place within it。 。。。more
Fianna Whitman
，
Thank you to Netgalley and the Author for providing me with an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review。 This is a life altering book。 I loved it。 But it is so hard to describe。 Just read it。 you won't be sorry。 Thank you to Netgalley and the Author for providing me with an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review。 This is a life altering book。 I loved it。 But it is so hard to describe。 Just read it。 you won't be sorry。 。。。more
Timothy
，
This is a horrible book by some very confused and self deluded people。 Taking a bad paradigm and making it worse。
India M。 Clamp
，
Als ich dieses Buch zum ersten Mal betrachtete， bemerkte ich einige Ähnlichkeiten zwischen Lanza und Dr。 Salk。 Oft werden wir dazu gebracht， uns als Ameisen auf einem Planeten zu betrachten， die den Launen der Lebensformen auf diesem Planeten unterliegen。 Dennoch postuliert Lanza eine veränderte Realität， dass der Beobachter die materielle und vielleicht eine sakrosankte Komponente des Universums ist。 Stellen Sie sich vor， das Bewusstsein ist ein Gehirn und einige haben mehr Fähigkeiten， das Uni Als ich dieses Buch zum ersten Mal betrachtete， bemerkte ich einige Ähnlichkeiten zwischen Lanza und Dr。 Salk。 Oft werden wir dazu gebracht， uns als Ameisen auf einem Planeten zu betrachten， die den Launen der Lebensformen auf diesem Planeten unterliegen。 Dennoch postuliert Lanza eine veränderte Realität， dass der Beobachter die materielle und vielleicht eine sakrosankte Komponente des Universums ist。 Stellen Sie sich vor， das Bewusstsein ist ein Gehirn und einige haben mehr Fähigkeiten， das Universum und die Welten von der Vorstellungskraft des Betrachters abhängig zu machen （Einstein）。 Biozentrismus， indem wir hören， was die wissenschaft uns sagt。 Wir betrachten das Leben als einen Unfall der Physik。 Es wird deutlich， warum Raum und Zeit vom Betrachter abhängig sind。 Die Zeit existiert relativ zu jedem Beobachter （Einstein）。 Lanza geht noch weiter。 Alles， was sie sehen， ist ein wirbel von informationen， die in ihrem kopf vorkommen。 "Der Tod ist einfach eine Unterbrechung unseres linearen Bewusstseinsstroms。"--- Robert Lanza， MDDer zeitpfeil wird direkt mit dem beobachter zusammengeführt。 Die zeit vergeht nicht。 Die quantengravitation， die welt der relativitätstheorie und die quantenmechanik （bizarre Zustände） sind nicht miteinander kompatibel。 Quantenzustände bleiben verbunden。 Die messung des einen beeinflusst den anderen und bezieht sich auf Einsteins gruselige aktion in der Ferne。 Sogar katzen und menschen sollten in einem verwickelten zustand existieren。 Dekohärenz das licht wird ein- oder ausgeschaltet， wenn wir seinen Zustand messen。 Es ist notwendig， den Beobachter einzubeziehen。 Leben und bewusstsein verschmelzen miteinander。 Alles erscheint zufällig。 Giraffen entwickeln lange hälse， um lange Äste und evolutionäre vorteile zu ergreifen。 Berühmteste illustration einer million affen。 Dies trifft nicht zu， da forscher und makaken die schreibmaschinen als toiletten benutzten。 Also vergiss das blöde universum als seinen schwindel。 Unser universum ist ein fein abgestimmter kosmos。 Wenn die schwerkraft 2% anders wäre， hätten wir niemals die sonne oder das leben。 Benötigen sie elektromagnetismus und die starke kraft （perfekt abgestimmt）。 Wenn wir ockhams rasiermesser anwenden， bietet biozentrismus die wahrscheinlichste erklärung。 Das gesetz erlaubt es dem beobachter und der beobachter erzeugt sie。 Kaufen für das ist wert。 。。。more
Michaela
，
Very enjoyable read about the intersection of Physics and Philosophy， Classicists vs。 QM & MultiVersers。
Redpoet
，
Way back in college I wrote my final paper in Eastern Civilization and titled it reality is absolute mind。And there it is。。。
Felix Delong
，
My religion is biocentric eggism。
Randall P Peelen
，
Very， very enlightening I was mostly educated to read literature and write sentences。 For a lot of reasons， I was scared off from science and math when I wandered through K-12 in the 50's and 60's。 But I've always thought that science and math might give me a peak behind the curtain。 At the point when I read the original Biocentrism book， I must admit there was a lot that I couldn't wrap my head around。 I had a sense there was something there， but it wasn't sinking in。Years later this book came Very， very enlightening I was mostly educated to read literature and write sentences。 For a lot of reasons， I was scared off from science and math when I wandered through K-12 in the 50's and 60's。 But I've always thought that science and math might give me a peak behind the curtain。 At the point when I read the original Biocentrism book， I must admit there was a lot that I couldn't wrap my head around。 I had a sense there was something there， but it wasn't sinking in。Years later this book came out and I added to my queue， but it sat there for quite a while。 I finally started in a month or so ago and read no more than a chapter a day。 I wanted to give myself time to think about what I was reading。 That process included writing myself notes and making diagrams。Worth every minute！ As the ideas from this book fell into place for me， so many other religious and philosophical readings just seemed to clarify themselves。My conclusions are personal， but I'd like to thank all of the authors for believing enough in these ideas to make them public。 Both the author's and I will likely have passed before this book's central understandings become a part of how "Main St。" thinks， but I believe that's how things are going to end up for these ideas。 。。。more
Darin Bratsman
，
I'm torn on my opinion of this book and the concept of biocentrism。 On one hand， the concepts do feel pretty revolutionary as a way to explain scientific findings in the field of quantum physics。 On the other hand， I didn't really understand the author's conclusions （which is fine， it is a challenging topic） but more importantly I don't really care。 I read this book immediately following Hawking's Brief Answers to Big Questions which I found to be fascinating as he applied scientific reasoning t I'm torn on my opinion of this book and the concept of biocentrism。 On one hand， the concepts do feel pretty revolutionary as a way to explain scientific findings in the field of quantum physics。 On the other hand， I didn't really understand the author's conclusions （which is fine， it is a challenging topic） but more importantly I don't really care。 I read this book immediately following Hawking's Brief Answers to Big Questions which I found to be fascinating as he applied scientific reasoning to questions that matter。 Lanza's conclusions， for me， don't make sense of life or the world。 I know some feel that biocentrism is life-affirming but I feel exactly the opposite。 Lastly， it should be noted that many scientists challenge Lanza's biocentrism theories。 I gave the book three stars as it was fairly well-written and researched but I would not recommend to others as a book to read。 。。。more
Mike & Martin
，
An excellent successor with in-depth analysis of the latest cutting edge scientific theories。Well worth the investment
Eugene Rodgers
，
For Christmas， I was given a hard-back copy of “The Grand Biocentric Design” by Robert Lanza。 I read it straight through once， and then again， stopping to study and try to figure out passages that weren’t clear。 I have a college degree in a science （chemistry） and spent many years as a science writer， reading scientific publications and interpreting them for laypeople。 Even so， although I think I got the drift of the book， I couldn’t follow Lanza’s explanations of the details。 There were too man For Christmas， I was given a hard-back copy of “The Grand Biocentric Design” by Robert Lanza。 I read it straight through once， and then again， stopping to study and try to figure out passages that weren’t clear。 I have a college degree in a science （chemistry） and spent many years as a science writer， reading scientific publications and interpreting them for laypeople。 Even so， although I think I got the drift of the book， I couldn’t follow Lanza’s explanations of the details。 There were too many leaps and gaps between facts。 And right now， most of the explanations are in terms of quantum physics。 That’s a necessary frst step， but we need something more。I believe Lanza is on to something， but we don’t know enough yet about biocentrism to fully grasp how it works。 Let me give an analogy。 It’s as if， in the early days of astronomy， someone had written a book about the great mysteries of the skies such as the nature of the earth， moon， sun， fixed stars， and moving “stars” （planets）， and how they moved in repeated， inexplicable patterns。 The book might present mathematical descriptions of the motions and show how they could be explained by assuming revolutions of the sun around the earth or the earth around the sun and the moon around the earth as well as rotations of the earth and moon—but without saying anything about the physical nature of the earth， heavenly bodies， or outer space or the existence and influence of gravity。People might see these ideas as interesting mathematical exercises that bear no relation to reality。 Others， more astute， might see that the theorists were on to something but could only offer partial explanations that would await greater clarity。 That would come when astronomers discovered that the earth， moon， sun， and planets were spheres in space， that the earth revolved around the sun and the moon revolved around the earth， and gravity governed the revolutions。 In fact， this is pretty much how astronomy developed historically。 When all the facts were in， no one had to know the mathematics to understand the solar system and everyone could grasp what became known as the Copernican theory。 Biocentrism is in the first or early stage and full understanding awaits a good deal of clarification。Probably because so much information is lacking， Lanza fills in the book by such devices as going off on tangents and telling personal stories that contribute little to understanding biocentrism。 Readers can learn as much about biocentrism at this point by reading articles on line as by reading this book。 。。。more
Chitundu Müller
，
Not as good as the first two biocentrism books but still delivers a consistent message。
Pratik Gohel
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Best book I've seen ever👌👌 great work Best book I've seen ever👌👌 great work 。。。more
Krishna Kumar
，
Book is awesome 📓📓❤️❤️
Peter Gelfan
，
The perennial controversy about which came first， consciousness or the physical universe， takes a new twist with this book （and its earlier forerunners by the same authors）。 Their approach， while stemming from the uber-physics of quantum theory and relativity， comes down firmly on the side of consciousness。 At first glance， it makes good quantum-theory sense， for if conscious observation of a physical reaction at the quantum level can determine its outcome， who’s boss？ The universe the authors d The perennial controversy about which came first， consciousness or the physical universe， takes a new twist with this book （and its earlier forerunners by the same authors）。 Their approach， while stemming from the uber-physics of quantum theory and relativity， comes down firmly on the side of consciousness。 At first glance， it makes good quantum-theory sense， for if conscious observation of a physical reaction at the quantum level can determine its outcome， who’s boss？ The universe the authors describe as the one we live in is very strange and uncertain， and yet it aligns better with science and common sense than perhaps any other scientific or philosophical world view， including its prognosis of the impossibility of an ultimate understanding。 The authors make a good case， but I’m no quantum physicist， and at times the step-by-step proofs， while plausible， didn’t seem watertight。 As well， the slight whiff of self-promotion that runs throughout didn’t boost confidence。 But the book is full of fascinating ideas and provides a different approach from the tired old spirit-vs。-quark battles。 。。。more
Sunnygill1999
，