Biocentrism Says Existence Is a Matter of Perception

“Without consciousness, space and time are nothing.” - Robert Lanza

As maniac as this idea may seem, it stands as a relatively popular theory known as biocentrism, or the theory of everything. It’s the idea that consciousness is responsible for the existence of the universe, not the other way around as physics would have you believe.

As all that we know from physics continues to yield more questions than answers, medical doctor and scientist, Robert Lanza, has presented this new way to approach the “why?” question. His theory of everything places biology first, suggesting that the “web would not exist without the spider.” A shared consciousness, which kindles our collective web of all things known, is responsible and necessary for the existence of the universe and, without this shared consciousness, there would simply be nothing.

From a different angle, this notion could be explained by suggesting that things don’t exist unless you are there to observe them. This has been countlessly demonstrated by the famous double-slit experiment, in which entangled particles only present themselves as identifiable when they are observed. When they are not observed, they do not exhibit any unique properties within any specific orientation of space and time, but rather present themselves as a wave with infinite possibility across all of space and time.

Through physics, we’ve made significant progress in understanding the nature of our universe. Matter is studied as we track its motion and behaviors, and various physical theories are put to the test against the laws we’ve mostly come to accept. And while this scientific method can allot a certain level of confidence to its known facts about the nature of our universe, it must insist that no scientific fact be considered an absolute truth.

Even science admits that the very nature of truth is a matter of perception, and thus can never be absolute.

This fact - that there are no facts - also presents a problem for the theory of biocentrism, and it all comes down to the “truth” about space and time. Biocentrism regards both space and time as mental tools that we use collectively to form a frame of reference for our existence, rather than regarding them as physical objects that can be measured. If you can’t measure space or time, then you can’t prove that they exist, or that anything exists within their respective boundaries, including the theory of biocentrism.

It’s funny and ironic to think that nothing is true yet, as you observe it to be, it is.

The Moment or the Memory?

“Odd as it may seem, I am my remembering self, and the experiencing self, who does my living, is like a stranger to me.” ― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

What's more significant: the moment itself, or the memory you have of it?

Nobel Prize winner and psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, who has been widely recognized for his work in developing Prospect theory, presents an interesting perspective on the relationship between the experiencing self and the remembering self. As you can probably deduce, the experiencing self describes the version of you who is present during life's moments as they happen, while the remembering self is the version of you who reflects upon these moments, which would then exist as memories.

Consider Daniel Kahneman's example of a one-week vacation vs. a two-week vacation. To the experiencing self, assuming that the second week was just as good as the first, a two-week vacation would seem to be twice as good as a one-week vacation, right?

However, when asking the remembering self to compare these two scenarios and determine which is better, the factor of "time spent" seems to play much less of a role. According to Daniel Kahneman, the factors that are actually in play here, as with any memory, are the changes, the significant events and the ending. These are the elements that make up our memories, and determine how we feel when we reflect upon them. So in this sense, in terms of its contribution to overall happiness, the one-week vacation suddenly seems just as good as the two-week vacation, and perhaps more practical.

"Inspired by true events" is a preface you'll often see at the beginning of a movie or book. But this preface is just as appropriate for each and every memory we've stored. When we recall one of these memories, we are not reliving the experience as it happened, but rather assessing the critical moments within the experience, and building a compelling story around the overall sentiment that these moments produced. The remembering self is the storyteller, while the experiencing self is just one of the characters within the story.

So, what's more significant: the moment itself, or the memory you have of it?