But Science says the opposite of you

Science is what it is, and it is not what it is not.

Science is not universal and fundamental knowledge.

Science is only a record of what is being discovered.

I would also say that it is a record of what is discovered and proven.

However, new discoveries constantly contradict previous ones.

The scientific procedure is based on testing a hypothesis and assigning it a percentage of plausibility.

There are things that can be proven and things that cannot.

Consciousness, for example, is something that science cannot test, because it cannot locate it or measure it.

So, not being able to verify its existence, it cannot verify and accept it.

But if Consciousness is the generator of reality, how would we be able to measure it?

What we perceive is what we accept as real.

And this has its limitations.

Because if we are incapable of perceiving something, we will not accept it as real.

Speculative science is a curious exception.

Hypotheses are accepted if they are accompanied by mathematical calculations that assign probability of being true.

But they are not accepted if they are accompanied by logical deductions.

In the case of my theory, I know the limitations of its acceptance.

Therefore, I have contemplated an experiment that could verify much of the theory.

If I could achieve the grouping of unicellular beings into a multicellular being, by means of Perception Transfer, I could verify several things.

1 - The existence of the Entities.

2 - The tendency of living beings to group themselves.

3 - The transference of Identity after the emergence of the higher being.

4 - The existence of an objective criterion of desirable behavior of association. That is, an absolute morality that should govern the behavior of living beings.

5 - That what is achieved in the world of the small can be achieved in the world of the great. The emergence of a God.

6 - That the phases of association, cooperation and specialization are the phases of the process of Transference. Thus, Paradise would be the preamble to a Higher Being.

If my theory were only a series of unverifiable assertions, it would be of no interest to me.

I do not like something to depend on the predisposition to believe it.

I understand that before I embark on an adventure like the Perfect Environment, I must verify that everything is true.

So the Perfect Environment in the world of the small is the best way to validate it.

If the result is satisfactory, then we can achieve fascinating things.

Can you imagine being able to access the mind of God?

I mean that of that metaphysical God, creator of the Universe.

Not a Superior Being, but the Supreme.

A mind that contains all knowledge.

If the process of Perception Transfer is real, along with the existence of the Entity, Consciousness and everything else....

Could we accept its existence, even if we could not measure it?

Just as the existence of subatomic particles is accepted.

Could we accept metaphysical speculation as certain?

Understanding that the certainty would be a mere probabilistic question, until it was demonstrated with some experiment.

Just as the particle accelerator seemed to prove the existence of the higgs boson, something totally speculative, I propose to do the same with the Perfect Environment.

From there, to prove the existence of Self-perception, Consciousness and other factors, the prism from which to view it would have to be changed.

The rules to prove this would be speculative and starting from a different premise.

It is the Mind that existed before matter.

It is the Mind that creates Reality.

What if I fail to create that Perfect Micro Environment?

Will it invalidate my whole theory?

I don't know. I imagine it won't.

Rather, I would look for another way to test it.

But I have a lot of Faith that the Perfect Environment in the world of the small can be achieved.

It is Faith.

I imagine that Faith is what drives us, both the scientists who had an inspiration and believed it to be the truth, and the rest of us.