1) The document outlines Robert Lanza's theory of biocentrism, which argues that biology and consciousness are central to understanding the universe, as evidenced by quantum experiments like the double-slit experiment. 2) Specifically, Lanza believes that consciousness causes reality rather than just observing it, and that without observation, particles exist in an undetermined quantum state. 3) The author critiques Lanza's "strong" biocentrism and argues instead for a "weak" version - that while consciousness may influence quantum phenomena, it does not determine all of reality. Observable objects seem to have characteristics independent of observation.

1. NicolasArrisola
PHL 363L
Juhl
4-9-15
The Double-slit Experiment and Biocentrism
In this paper I shall give an outline of the double-slit experiment in Section I, entertain Robert
Lanza’s theory of biocentrism and how it relates to the questions that arise from the double-slit
experiment in Section II, my critique of Lanza’s “strong” biocentrism in favor of “weak” biocentrism in
Section III, a classmate’s comment on Lanza’s theory in Section IV, and a short conclusion to this paper
in Section V. My main point of contention for this essay is that Robert Lanza’s strong theory of a
biocentric universe – that consciousness causes the universe rather than the other way around – seems
hard-pressed in accounting for the apparent characteristics of objects in the conventionally observable,
Newtonian world; thus, I argue for a weaker form of Lanza’s biocentrism which asserts that current
theories of the physical world should fully account for life and consciousness.
I. The double-slit experiment is a quantum mechanical experiment demonstrating that both light and
matter can show characteristics of both particles and waves; it also exhibits the probabilistic nature of the
phenomena that occur within the quantum realm. The logic of the experiment follows so: Imagine a
barrier with two parallel slits in it and, projected a short distance behind it, a wide screen. If we were to
shoot bits of matter such as marbles through these slits with some sort of launching device, we would
expect to see the marbles hit the two parts of the screen directly behind the two slits. If we were to place
the barrier with the slits in water and produced a wave that propagated towards the slits, we would expect
to see a segmented hit pattern on the screen behind them that reflects the interference pattern created
when the crests and troughs of the two waves – one from each slit – collide with each other. These two
scenarios are common-sense, Newtonian physics observations.
Now, we’ll look at the quantum mechanical aspects of this experiment. Instead of marbles or
water,this time we’ll use something much smaller in size, such as photons. If we were to cover one of the
two slits in the barrier so that no photons could pass through that slit while firing photons at the other slit,

2. NicolasArrisola
PHL 363L
Juhl
4-9-15
we would observe a pattern on the screen similar to the aforementioned marble pattern; the photons seem
to behave like particles. If we were to remove the covering and fire the photons through both slits,
however, an interference pattern like the aforementioned water pattern would appear on the posterior
screen instead; the photons now seem to be acting like waves! This strange phenomenon has come to be
known as the wave-particle duality of quantum entities.
The weirdness doesn’t end there,however. Physicists – no doubt puzzled by these quantum
occurrences – decided to “peek” at what really goes on when the photons transition from behaving like
particles to behaving like waves when a second slit is introduced. Since a piece of matter such as a photon
can exhibit the wave-like property of interference when shot through the two slits, this implies that the
photon exists in a wave-like state of probability where it can essentially pass through both slits
simultaneously and interfere with itself to create such a pattern. Knowing this, physicists decided they
would directly observe which slit(s) an individual photon actually passes through; they placed a
measuring apparatus near one of the slits such that it would cause little to no interference with the
experiment proceedings. Strangely enough, this very act of measurement/observation seems to influence
the outcome of the experiment in such a way that the photon goes back to behaving like a particle and
produces the marble pattern; an interference pattern is nowhere to be seen. This uncanny phenomenon is
now famously referred to as the “quantum enigma,” the strange principle of quantum mechanics where
measuring or otherwise observing a quantum entity in superposition seems to collapse its inherently
probabilistic wave function into a singular, deterministic state.
What are the implications of this? How does the very act of observation affect the outcome of a
physical state? Is it possible that consciousness plays a role in this and if so, to what extent? Enter
biocentrism, a “new theory” of the universe and an interpretation of the double-slit experiment and
quantum mechanics that focuses on the importance of consciousness in determining what constitutes
reality.

3. NicolasArrisola
PHL 363L
Juhl
4-9-15
II. Robert Lanza, a medical doctor and biologist, proposed this biocentric theory of the universe in
2007 in an effort to show how biology could build upon these quandaries that arise in quantum
mechanical research. Biocentrism, at its core,sees biology as the foundational science of the world as
opposed to physics; a theory of everything cannot be produced until predominant physical theories of the
world can fully account for life and consciousness.
There are seven key principles that form the theory of biocentrism:
1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An
“external” reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. This is
meaningless, however, since space and time are tools of the human and animal mind
rather than absolute realities.
2. Our internal and external perceptions are inextricably intertwined; they are different
sides of the same coin.
3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably
linked to the presence of an observer. Without a conscious observer, they exist in an
undetermined state of probability waves.
4. Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any
universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
5. The structure of the universe is only explainable 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.
6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the
process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
7. Space,like time, is not an object or thing. Space is another form of our animal
understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time

4. NicolasArrisola
PHL 363L
Juhl
4-9-15
with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in
which physical events occur independent of life.
With regards to the double-slit experiment, Dr. Lanza believes that wave-particle duality
and the quantum enigma are strange to us because we do not fully understand the inner
mechanisms of how consciousness affects the world we perceive. Upon formulating these
principles that ended up as the foundation for biocentric theory, however, Lanza eventually came
to the realization that consciousness is the primary cause for these anomalies and is effectively
the axis of the universe. States of matter are determined by the very act of conscious observance.
Because of this, there seems to be no reason for there to believe that an “external” reality even
exists outside of our minds according to Lanza; the mind realizes its own reality based on this
paradigm of biocentrism.
III. There are quite a few problems I’d like to point out about Lanza’s theory, but for the sake
of brevity I’ll only be focusing on biocentrism’s apparent dismissiveness of the macroscopic world and
how observable objects have particular characteristics (essentially a direct argument against principle #3
of biocentrism).
So let’s suppose that biocentrism is correct in its assertion that the behaviors of all particles and
objects are inextricably linked to the presence of an observer and that these entities are only actualized
when consciously perceived. Accepting this, I look behind me and pick up the spoon that I often use for
my cerealbowl. I notice that it’s about 93% black in its color saturation and it has a small smudge of
some sort on the right side of the handle. I infer that these small details somehow arise from my conscious
observance of the spoon. This, however, seems unintuitive; why is the spoon 93% black in color when it
could be 95% or even 100% saturated? Why would I consciously perceive there to be a smudge on the
handle when, quite frankly, it seems ideal to have a smudge-less spoon? Am I consciously determining
these qualities by mere observation? According to biocentrism, this has to be true, and therein lies the

5. NicolasArrisola
PHL 363L
Juhl
4-9-15
problem: how do macroscopic objects or entities acquire these particular characteristics that seem counter
to what we would ideally perceive them as?
In order to answer this question, I would like to revise Lanza’s theory into one that is much more
accommodating for the causaldeterminism we experience in the observable world: Instead of viewing
consciousness as the root cause of all phenomena in the universe (we can refer to this as the “strong” or
otherwise “fully subscribed” argument for biocentrism), I contend that consciousness should be viewed as
a potential hidden variable in understanding the oddities that occur in quantum mechanics and – similar to
Lanza’s original thought in formulating biocentrism – I believe that a thorough understanding of life and
consciousness is necessary in formulating a sound theory for how the universe actually is (we can refer to
this as the “weak” or otherwise “partially subscribed” argument for biocentrism).
IV. A philosophy colleague of mine by the name of Garrett Stanton brought up yet another profound
point of contention against Lanza’s biocentric theory that appeals to something reminiscent of the
“problem of other minds”. Stanton claims that biocentrism fails as a theory of the universe because it
gives too much significance to a particular individual and relinquishes the significance of others within
the world. The question he implicitly brings up can be formulated as “If consciousness is the causal root
of all phenomena in the universe, how does one particular consciousness interact with another universe-
creating consciousness? Other people have different dispositions and thoughts, so it’s only natural to
think that they have a consciousness that differs from my own; if such is the case,then how can different
causalentities formulate an apparently singular whole, that is, the universe?”
I have considered Stanton’s notion and despite its perceptive insight against biocentrism, I have
come up with a counterargument that Lanza may theoretically say in response: Yes,there are other minds,
other consciousnesses in the world, but that doesn’t mean that biocentrism is completely out the window.
Consciousness can be viewed as having a universal aspect shared among all human beings; that is, it
could include something akin to Jung’s collective unconscious. Instead of viewing each individual mind

6. NicolasArrisola
PHL 363L
Juhl
4-9-15
as influencing the universe in an isolated fashion (the universe only catering to one individual at a time),
it may be better to view the plurality of minds as having a shared,arbitrary characteristic of universe-
actualization (the universe catering to all minds in an identical fashion; this is why things/properties in the
world appear to be relatively unchanging).
V. Robert Lanza’s interpretation of the double-slit experiment and quantum mechanics as a whole,
while insightful in its scope and definitely a theory worth thinking about in terms of what we really know
about the universe, is not unlike many other interpretations that tend to subscribe to the “quantum woo” of
the seemingly magical aspects of quantum experiments.
Having said this, however, I don’t think that one should completely discredit the notion that
consciousness plays a role in subatomic matter acquiring definitive characteristics from a cloud of
probability. After all, we know very little about consciousness and what it entails; for all we know, it
could very well be the key hidden variable in solving the quantum question that Einstein was so keen on
answering.