Cogito, ergo sum
Life has always had its mysteries since the beginning of time. The sciences have always been useful in answering these mysteries, but they were used separately. Biology is only used for the study of living things. Chemistry is only used when studying matter. Physics is only used when studying matter, energy, space, and time, and their relations. We could list the science topics forever, but the point is, why not use them all? That is what Biocentrism is about. It takes all of sciences, mainly, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, astrology, quantum physics and quantum mechanics and uses them all, to answer the mysteries of the universe. “How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe”(front). Biocentrism means centrality of life, the whole key to Biocentrism is the idea of life creating and governing the universe. Biocentrism will tackle some of the hardest and oldest mysteries of all such as the age old question: If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? It also discusses the famous Double Slit experiment that has been done thousands of times and its results are still amazing. It will also answer the question about how our “Goldilocks’ universe” exists and discuss the theory of multiple universes. Almost all of Biocentrism is different perspectives from what the usual is, though thought of as nonsense due to its illogical thinking at times; it sufficient scientific data to back it up. A couple centuries ago, the idea of the Earth being round and not the center of the universe was crazy, a couple centuries later and the idea is accepted by everyone. The same thing may happen with Biocentrism, everyone may accept the idea sooner or later. The title Cogito, ergo sum, means, I think, therefore I am, this relates to Biocentrism because consciousness plays a large role. Biocentrism will change the way we think about everyday life, and will question everything, even life and its mysteries.
To begin with, when we were young we were taught a certain way, probably the same way everyone else was taught. Predictably, we grew up with the same mentality, that is, the mentality of assumptions. When we are in our bedrooms, we assume our kitchen is still there; why? We have gone from our bedroom to our kitchens countless times a day and the kitchen is still there. If I say no, it vanished; someone would probably go into the kitchen and prove to me that the kitchen is, in fact, there. But the fact of the matter is everything that we see “out there” as in, outside our thoughts, requires a conscious for it to “be there.” If it doesn’t exist to us, it doesn’t exist at all. When we are in our bedroom, our kitchen vanishes and it doesn’t exist to us because there is no one there to perceive it. Now for an example, say that there is a lit candle, the flame has a yellow color. Does the flame still have that same yellow color when there is no one looking at it? A flame is, after all, merely, a hot gas. “Like any source of light, it emits photons or tiny packets of waves of electromagnetic energy. Each consists of electrical and magnetic pulses”(21). Since hot gas is just electromagnetic waves, it too must be perceived. The waves must “measure between 400 and 700 nanometers in length from crest to crest…”(21). Only if the waves are between that range, then the energy stimulates our nerves and, to make things short, creates this image we call a flame. Neither electricity nor magnetism has any visual properties, but our mind sees that hot gas as a flame. If there was no conscious to perceive the flame it would not even exist as a flame, just hot gas. If they did, then we could see all the gases in the air surrounding us right now, but we don’t so that alone proves that we see fire as a flame, even though it is a just hot gas. Another example is the age old question: Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it? First we need to have the definitions of sound which is: “the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium”(sound). Most people, would look at me and ask me if I was crazy, and say “Of course, it does! Why wouldn’t it?” As I have stated before, everything that we perceive “as out,” there, requires a conscious. Sound is one of them, it must be perceived for it to exist. For sound to exist there must be a producer, a receiver and a medium for the sound to travel in/through. Regarding the question, there is only a producer and a medium, but no receiver. If one variable is left out of the equation of sound, then the sound does not exist. The sound of a falling tree in an empty forest merely creates air pulses. It only makes a sound to us if the pulses are vibrating anywhere between 20 and 20,000 times per second. That range of vibrations causes our nerves to be stimulated and create sound to us. If the air pulses are 15 vibrations per second, it will not be perceived because it will not stimulate our nerves and therefore, will not make a sound. So air pulses don’t create sound, but we perceive it as sound. This brings us to the first principle of Biocentrism: “What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness”(23). This supports the idea of Biocentrism that life creates the universe, because if there was no life, the universe would not even exist.
Furthermore, going along with the idea of Biocentrism which is that life creates the universe. Without us, what would exist? For example, if there is no one looking at the moon, it too, does not exist because it must be perceived. To prove this theory, there was an experiment done called “The double-slit experiment.” The experiment took place because physicists were still debating whether lights were made up of “particles called photons or waves of energy”(62). The experiment was done with particles of electrons because they are easy to beam. A machine would shoot the particles and the particles would hit a detector wall, but first it would go through a barrier with two paths. The particles can “choose” if it will go through the slit on the left or the slit on the right. The particles have a fifty-fifty chance for each path. The particles can also hit the barrier because they did not go through either of the slits. When we shoot the particles through the barrier, we expect to see a circle of particles on the barrier, which are the particles that did not go through and some dots of particles on the detector wall. But, when the experiment is done there are no particles on the barrier, and there is a wave pattern on the detector wall. The electron particles actually went through the barrier. “…the double-slit experiment yielded amazing information about the nature of reality. Solid objects have a wave nature!”(67). The electron particles went through the barrier because we did not actually perceive the process as it happened because it happens too fast for it to be registered in our brain. That is why we see the wave result in the detector wall. So, when we are not looking at an object, such as the chair you are sitting on, it does not exist, it only exists as waves. In the last paragraph, I mentioned “out there” and “in our thoughts” as different entities because it was easier to explain that topic that way. In this paragraph, “out there” and “in our thoughts” is the same exact thing. Our brain, after all, produces the image that we see “out there,” but it is only our mind’s work. “Look now at anything. Custom has told us that what we see is “out there,” outside ourselves, and such a viewpoint is fine and necessary in terms of language and utility, as in “Please pass the butter that’s over there.” But make no mistake: the visual image of that butter, that is, the butter itself, actually exists, only inside your brain. That is the location. It is the only place visual images are perceived and cognized”(36). So, in reality, nothing exists. If no one with a conscious inhabited the universe, there would only be waves existing. Someone again might say, “Well I can feel it, therefore it must exist.” Well, that feeling of touch exists only in our mind too. So does our sense of smell and hearing. We are what makes this universe run, without us, there would be nothing. Now let’s discuss our thoughts. What we think in our thoughts modify how we act. If we look at the clock and see that we are late for work, we will act that way. If the clock was an hour fast and we were not aware of that, it would not matter, we would hurry until we got to work and find no one there. At the instant from we looked at the clock and recognized the time to right before the instant we discovered that we were early, our thoughts controlled our reality. So our thoughts and what we call reality are both the same. “Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be separated”(39). If “out there” is really in our thoughts, what would be “out there” if there were no conscious in this universe? Again, nothing would exist and this also supports the idea, of our life creating the universe.
Consequently, people may look at the universe and ask themselves, “How is this place so designed for us? There must have been some deity that controlled all of this for us.” I agree because the universe it fine-tuned for life to exist. That does not necessarily mean that a deity created the universe. People would say, “Oh God must have done that!” Why assume it is God, because that statement alone provides no proof of any sort. The statement may be true, but it is pointless without any explanation of some sort. The idea of the universe being so “perfect” for life is called “Goldilocks’ Principle,” because “the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that,” but rather “just right” for life. Carbon is one of them; without it, we cannot exist. Carbon is found within our bodies, but where did that carbon come from? The answer is something that is right in our solar system, the sun. When a sun “gets older” it will eventually come near to running out of energy, eventually, if the star is big enough, it will end in a bang. That bang is called a supernova, and it whatever is engulfed in the explosion has its materials blown in all directions. That is where we get our carbon. The star received its carbon from a different supernova, and it goes on until there is the Big Bang. The Big Bang would blow particles in all directions and the particles could bump into each other, though the odds are extremely low. People may think, “How can this universe exist, there is such a small chance of the components being available.”
“If the universe is created by life, then no universe that didn’t allow for life could possible exist. This fits very neatly into quantum theory and John Wheeler’s participatory universe in which observers are required to bring the universe into existence. Because, if indeed there was ever such a time, the universe was in an undetermined probability state before the presence of observers (some probabilities –or most- not allowing for life), when the observation began and the universe collapsed into a real state, it inevitably collapsed into a state that allowed for the observation that collapsed it. With Biocentrism, the mystery of the Goldilocks’ universe goes away, and the critical role of life and consciousness in shaping the universe becomes clear”(91).
This completely supports the idea of Biocentrism of life creating the universe. This theory also gets support from quantum theory which is much respected in the realm of science. The only reason, however, that they are both theories, is that they cannot be proven. No one can prove that if there was no life in a universe, it would not exist. It must be observed for it to become a fact to scientists. Regarding the quote, there could have been multiple universes that have ceased to exist because it could not sustain life. Now it makes sense for our universe to be “perfect” in the sense that it could sustain life because after countless times, there must be one that would be the one. So that means that life is not a mistake, but rather a variable for a universe; if we are in the equation anywhere, the universe in no longer in existence. “Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The very structure of the universe is explainable only through Biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The universe is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self”(93). Again, this all ties in with the idea of life creating the universe, in simple terms, no life equals no universe.
To recapitulate, Biocentrism’s main idea is that life creates the universe, which completely contradicts today’s thinking which is that the universe created life. With all the sciences in Biocentrism’s grasp, anything can be accomplished and many unanswered questions can become common knowledge to out next generation. Knowing that the moon does not exist when we are not looking at it may become as common as Columbus sailed the ocean blue is 1492. Schools may be required to teach Biocentrism in the future and out society can advance without any hesitation. We would know the secrets to the universe and know the universe as if it were the back of our hand. We could find cures for diseases by using antimatter in a controlled state, or implant chips into future generations so they learn 1000 years of knowledge in a minute. Life may not have all those mysteries anymore; we may even stop coining the word mystery at some point. What will become of life without mysteries? We may soon find out. As you close this document, the essay ceases to exist, because, it is after all, a figment our imagination then. Cogito, ergo sum.
Life has always had its mysteries since the beginning of time. The sciences have always been useful in answering these mysteries, but they were used separately. Biology is only used for the study of living things. Chemistry is only used when studying matter. Physics is only used when studying matter, energy, space, and time, and their relations. We could list the science topics forever, but the point is, why not use them all? That is what Biocentrism is about. It takes all of sciences, mainly, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, astrology, quantum physics and quantum mechanics and uses them all, to answer the mysteries of the universe. “How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe”(front). Biocentrism means centrality of life, the whole key to Biocentrism is the idea of life creating and governing the universe. Biocentrism will tackle some of the hardest and oldest mysteries of all such as the age old question: If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? It also discusses the famous Double Slit experiment that has been done thousands of times and its results are still amazing. It will also answer the question about how our “Goldilocks’ universe” exists and discuss the theory of multiple universes. Almost all of Biocentrism is different perspectives from what the usual is, though thought of as nonsense due to its illogical thinking at times; it sufficient scientific data to back it up. A couple centuries ago, the idea of the Earth being round and not the center of the universe was crazy, a couple centuries later and the idea is accepted by everyone. The same thing may happen with Biocentrism, everyone may accept the idea sooner or later. The title Cogito, ergo sum, means, I think, therefore I am, this relates to Biocentrism because consciousness plays a large role. Biocentrism will change the way we think about everyday life, and will question everything, even life and its mysteries.
To begin with, when we were young we were taught a certain way, probably the same way everyone else was taught. Predictably, we grew up with the same mentality, that is, the mentality of assumptions. When we are in our bedrooms, we assume our kitchen is still there; why? We have gone from our bedroom to our kitchens countless times a day and the kitchen is still there. If I say no, it vanished; someone would probably go into the kitchen and prove to me that the kitchen is, in fact, there. But the fact of the matter is everything that we see “out there” as in, outside our thoughts, requires a conscious for it to “be there.” If it doesn’t exist to us, it doesn’t exist at all. When we are in our bedroom, our kitchen vanishes and it doesn’t exist to us because there is no one there to perceive it. Now for an example, say that there is a lit candle, the flame has a yellow color. Does the flame still have that same yellow color when there is no one looking at it? A flame is, after all, merely, a hot gas. “Like any source of light, it emits photons or tiny packets of waves of electromagnetic energy. Each consists of electrical and magnetic pulses”(21). Since hot gas is just electromagnetic waves, it too must be perceived. The waves must “measure between 400 and 700 nanometers in length from crest to crest…”(21). Only if the waves are between that range, then the energy stimulates our nerves and, to make things short, creates this image we call a flame. Neither electricity nor magnetism has any visual properties, but our mind sees that hot gas as a flame. If there was no conscious to perceive the flame it would not even exist as a flame, just hot gas. If they did, then we could see all the gases in the air surrounding us right now, but we don’t so that alone proves that we see fire as a flame, even though it is a just hot gas. Another example is the age old question: Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it? First we need to have the definitions of sound which is: “the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium”(sound). Most people, would look at me and ask me if I was crazy, and say “Of course, it does! Why wouldn’t it?” As I have stated before, everything that we perceive “as out,” there, requires a conscious. Sound is one of them, it must be perceived for it to exist. For sound to exist there must be a producer, a receiver and a medium for the sound to travel in/through. Regarding the question, there is only a producer and a medium, but no receiver. If one variable is left out of the equation of sound, then the sound does not exist. The sound of a falling tree in an empty forest merely creates air pulses. It only makes a sound to us if the pulses are vibrating anywhere between 20 and 20,000 times per second. That range of vibrations causes our nerves to be stimulated and create sound to us. If the air pulses are 15 vibrations per second, it will not be perceived because it will not stimulate our nerves and therefore, will not make a sound. So air pulses don’t create sound, but we perceive it as sound. This brings us to the first principle of Biocentrism: “What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness”(23). This supports the idea of Biocentrism that life creates the universe, because if there was no life, the universe would not even exist.
Furthermore, going along with the idea of Biocentrism which is that life creates the universe. Without us, what would exist? For example, if there is no one looking at the moon, it too, does not exist because it must be perceived. To prove this theory, there was an experiment done called “The double-slit experiment.” The experiment took place because physicists were still debating whether lights were made up of “particles called photons or waves of energy”(62). The experiment was done with particles of electrons because they are easy to beam. A machine would shoot the particles and the particles would hit a detector wall, but first it would go through a barrier with two paths. The particles can “choose” if it will go through the slit on the left or the slit on the right. The particles have a fifty-fifty chance for each path. The particles can also hit the barrier because they did not go through either of the slits. When we shoot the particles through the barrier, we expect to see a circle of particles on the barrier, which are the particles that did not go through and some dots of particles on the detector wall. But, when the experiment is done there are no particles on the barrier, and there is a wave pattern on the detector wall. The electron particles actually went through the barrier. “…the double-slit experiment yielded amazing information about the nature of reality. Solid objects have a wave nature!”(67). The electron particles went through the barrier because we did not actually perceive the process as it happened because it happens too fast for it to be registered in our brain. That is why we see the wave result in the detector wall. So, when we are not looking at an object, such as the chair you are sitting on, it does not exist, it only exists as waves. In the last paragraph, I mentioned “out there” and “in our thoughts” as different entities because it was easier to explain that topic that way. In this paragraph, “out there” and “in our thoughts” is the same exact thing. Our brain, after all, produces the image that we see “out there,” but it is only our mind’s work. “Look now at anything. Custom has told us that what we see is “out there,” outside ourselves, and such a viewpoint is fine and necessary in terms of language and utility, as in “Please pass the butter that’s over there.” But make no mistake: the visual image of that butter, that is, the butter itself, actually exists, only inside your brain. That is the location. It is the only place visual images are perceived and cognized”(36). So, in reality, nothing exists. If no one with a conscious inhabited the universe, there would only be waves existing. Someone again might say, “Well I can feel it, therefore it must exist.” Well, that feeling of touch exists only in our mind too. So does our sense of smell and hearing. We are what makes this universe run, without us, there would be nothing. Now let’s discuss our thoughts. What we think in our thoughts modify how we act. If we look at the clock and see that we are late for work, we will act that way. If the clock was an hour fast and we were not aware of that, it would not matter, we would hurry until we got to work and find no one there. At the instant from we looked at the clock and recognized the time to right before the instant we discovered that we were early, our thoughts controlled our reality. So our thoughts and what we call reality are both the same. “Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be separated”(39). If “out there” is really in our thoughts, what would be “out there” if there were no conscious in this universe? Again, nothing would exist and this also supports the idea, of our life creating the universe.
Consequently, people may look at the universe and ask themselves, “How is this place so designed for us? There must have been some deity that controlled all of this for us.” I agree because the universe it fine-tuned for life to exist. That does not necessarily mean that a deity created the universe. People would say, “Oh God must have done that!” Why assume it is God, because that statement alone provides no proof of any sort. The statement may be true, but it is pointless without any explanation of some sort. The idea of the universe being so “perfect” for life is called “Goldilocks’ Principle,” because “the cosmos is not “too this” or “too that,” but rather “just right” for life. Carbon is one of them; without it, we cannot exist. Carbon is found within our bodies, but where did that carbon come from? The answer is something that is right in our solar system, the sun. When a sun “gets older” it will eventually come near to running out of energy, eventually, if the star is big enough, it will end in a bang. That bang is called a supernova, and it whatever is engulfed in the explosion has its materials blown in all directions. That is where we get our carbon. The star received its carbon from a different supernova, and it goes on until there is the Big Bang. The Big Bang would blow particles in all directions and the particles could bump into each other, though the odds are extremely low. People may think, “How can this universe exist, there is such a small chance of the components being available.”
“If the universe is created by life, then no universe that didn’t allow for life could possible exist. This fits very neatly into quantum theory and John Wheeler’s participatory universe in which observers are required to bring the universe into existence. Because, if indeed there was ever such a time, the universe was in an undetermined probability state before the presence of observers (some probabilities –or most- not allowing for life), when the observation began and the universe collapsed into a real state, it inevitably collapsed into a state that allowed for the observation that collapsed it. With Biocentrism, the mystery of the Goldilocks’ universe goes away, and the critical role of life and consciousness in shaping the universe becomes clear”(91).
This completely supports the idea of Biocentrism of life creating the universe. This theory also gets support from quantum theory which is much respected in the realm of science. The only reason, however, that they are both theories, is that they cannot be proven. No one can prove that if there was no life in a universe, it would not exist. It must be observed for it to become a fact to scientists. Regarding the quote, there could have been multiple universes that have ceased to exist because it could not sustain life. Now it makes sense for our universe to be “perfect” in the sense that it could sustain life because after countless times, there must be one that would be the one. So that means that life is not a mistake, but rather a variable for a universe; if we are in the equation anywhere, the universe in no longer in existence. “Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The very structure of the universe is explainable only through Biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The universe is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self”(93). Again, this all ties in with the idea of life creating the universe, in simple terms, no life equals no universe.
To recapitulate, Biocentrism’s main idea is that life creates the universe, which completely contradicts today’s thinking which is that the universe created life. With all the sciences in Biocentrism’s grasp, anything can be accomplished and many unanswered questions can become common knowledge to out next generation. Knowing that the moon does not exist when we are not looking at it may become as common as Columbus sailed the ocean blue is 1492. Schools may be required to teach Biocentrism in the future and out society can advance without any hesitation. We would know the secrets to the universe and know the universe as if it were the back of our hand. We could find cures for diseases by using antimatter in a controlled state, or implant chips into future generations so they learn 1000 years of knowledge in a minute. Life may not have all those mysteries anymore; we may even stop coining the word mystery at some point. What will become of life without mysteries? We may soon find out. As you close this document, the essay ceases to exist, because, it is after all, a figment our imagination then. Cogito, ergo sum.
