test_article

New realities

In Edwin Abbott’s 1884 satirical novel Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, the inhabitants of a two-dimensional world struggle—and mostly fail—to conceive of dimensions beyond their own. Isaac Asimov once praised Flatland as “probably the best introduction one can find into the manner of perceiving dimensions,” warning us to be aware of the limitations we often unconsciously impose on our understanding of reality. Isaac Asimov, “Limitations,” Introduction to Flatland, Barnes & Noble edition, 1983

Asimov was no stranger to imagining other dimensions and to questioning whether the reality described by our current science might be no less hobbled than the two-dimensional world perceived by Flatlanders. He explored these questions in many of his novels, understanding all too well the difficulty in trying to convey something as utterly foreign as a different conception of reality. Asimov also certainly knew that the findings of modern physics–relativity and, particularly, quantum mechanics–revealed that the classical conceptions of physics is an incomplete approximation of a far more complex and deeper reality.

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a mathematical framework developed to predict the probabilities of different outcomes under specific conditions in the inherently unpredictable realm of subatomic phenomena. Without QM, none of the technologies that define modern life would have been possible. From electronics and nuclear power to LED lighting and fiber-optic communication, many foundational technologies of the past century rely directly on quantum principles. But the potential implications of QM go far beyond technology. Some physicists and philosophers have concluded that QM suggests there is a deeper order to the cosmos than the accidental, random model of contemporary science, and that mind or consciousness could be inherent aspects of reality. Avoiding semantic distinctions for now– this is just a broad-brush introduction to an early-stage idea.

Debates about QM have raged since its inception a century ago. Einstein didn’t buy the idea that everything was at bottom just a matter of probabilities. Neils Bohr believed that QM was just a calculational tool; it didn’t say anything at all about reality. Physics graduates who thought it might were shunned by the physics community for many decades. Such questions are now debated in the small but (mostly) accepted discipline known as the foundation of physics. Those debates have largely settled into several camps, including the incredibly bizarre “Many Worlds” in which a new universe is created by every atomic or sub-atomic event. See quantum realities for a very brief summary. In spite of its almost impossible-to-imagine conclusion, Many Worlds is considered by many physicists to be the most likely explanation of QM.

questions are now part of an accepted discipline known as the foundation of physics.

Much has been made of QM cosmological , its potential philosophical or metaphysical implications, or how it might reconcile science with spiritual insights or traditions. have been fiercely debated for Whether there is anything to QM other than a framework for calculations ability to calculate There is a long history of intense debate about some of these questions

There are many misrepresentations, what Murray Gell-Mann pejoratively called “quantum flapdoodle.“ Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1994) Tao of Physics– serious effort that was somewhat hijacked by New Age movement.

The Conscious Universe (Kaftou and ??? lamented that they did not want to see their book on the New Age shelf)

But even among competent physicists, there are many more questions than answers. Richard Feynman, who knew more about QM than just about anyone else, simply said “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.“ Richard P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965), 129.

With its various interpretations and many questions of meaning, quantum mechanics continues to be intensely debated. There is, however, no serious doubt among contemporary physicists that the universe is much different from what we thought it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Asimov’s excursions into other conceptions of reality were subtle markers of changes to come, preparing readers for the new conceptions heading our way.

Wolfgang Pauli was just one of several founders of QM who believed that the nature of the quantum realm revealed that reality is fundamentally different from what we have come to believe from scientific descriptions over the last few centuries. The classical physics of Isaac Newton and other icons is, on this view, only an approximation of a far different, deeper and more complex reality.

The underlying issue here is the role of consciousness. Decades of repeated experiments have confirmed what some interpret as the

bizarre and potentially significant finding of QM is that the boundary between matter and mind is porous.

second sidenote here ⊕ Rubin’s vase shows figure-ground reversal.

its potential significance for matters beyond physics.

The basic premise is straightforward: the stuff the Universe is made of includes both qualitative and quantitative properties. In addition to the scientifically established, quantifiable characteristics of matter and energy— mass, charge, spin and other measurable properties— there [appears to] exist non-measurable but nonetheless fundamental properties of reality, the nature of which we can at this point only glimpse or speculate.

Our current conceptual framework may be similarly limited. For centuries, the dominant cosmological model in Western thought has portrayed the universe as a vast mechanism: a grand array of discrete objects moving through space and time under fixed, mind-independent laws. Humans, according to this model, are merely observers—complex biological machines whose fleeting awareness arises from electrochemical events within the brain.

This classical conception see “classical worldview” in this project for a brief summary of just that. is foundational to modern Western civilization. It is rooted in Aristotelian thought, codified by Newtonian physics, and reinforced by Darwin’s naturalistic account of how life on earth has evolved. The classical conception has shaped not only our science, but also our philosophy, law, and even religion. Over the last couple of centuries, the classical conception has solidified into the belief that reality is singular, objective, and composed entirely of measurable, material stuff. On this view, usually referred to as physicalism or philosophical materialism, see “physicalism” in this project for a brief summary of physicalism. if something cannot be quantified it is deemed illusory, irrelevant, or nonexistent. Over the last century or so, the physicalist conception has furthered narrowed into the belief that science is the only valid means of describing reality. A belief often referred to as scientism. See Dawkins, Harris, et al}

It is perhaps an understandable belief, as modern science and technology have inarguably enabled an unprecedented level of health and prosperity for most humans. But what if the scientistic framework, powerful as it has been, is as limited as the worldview of Abbott’s Flatlanders? What if mind, spirit, or some other form of intrinsic subjectivity is not an accidental byproduct of physical complexity, but a fundamental dimension of existence?

This project begins from the premise that we are poised at the threshold of a conceptual revolution—one that may ultimately prove to be more disruptive and transformative than the Copernican and Cartesian shifts that reoriented a millennia-long blending of Aristotelian and Christian cosmologies and ushered in the modern scientific age. The core of this revolution is the premise that non-material phenomena are not exclusively derivative of physical processes but instead derive in substantive part from a realm of reality largely inaccessible to scientific investigation. Mind is not a secondary phenomenon but a primary reality in its own right.

By simply being willing to consider the belief that reality is not exclusively physical—and that is very much a belief, not an evidence-based conclusion—a new and immense horizon immediately opens for exploration. It is a horizon that has been long proclaimed by esoteric philosophies and contemplative traditions, and a growing body of evidence from physics, biology, and philosophy suggests that it is indeed real.

The first significant fractures in the classical worldview appeared with the advent of quantum mechanics (QM) a century ago. Quantum theory, experimentally confirmed without exception across thousands of tests, reveals a cosmos very different from the orderly machine envisioned by Newton and his successors. At the quantum level, matter behaves like neither discrete particles nor continuous waves, but in strange hybrids that defy classical categorization. Entities become entangled across vast distances, influencing one another instantaneously. The act of measurement seems to play an active role in shaping what is observed.

These discoveries challenge the notion that reality is fully separable from the act of observation. They raise profound questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between the observer and the observed. Wolfgang Pauli, one of the founding architects of QM, understood the truly revolutionary implications it, and that QM demanded a “new idea of reality”—one that could accommodate the inextricable link between subjective awareness and the fabric of existence itself. see “what does quantum mechanics tell us about reality? for a very brief introduction to the current list of notions about reality and quantum mechanics.

Yet despite its revolutionary implications, quantum theory has been treated by most scientists as just a set of useful mathematical tools, not as a foundation for rethinking reality. But the advent of QM has led to considerable debate among at least a small group of physicists and philosophers about how to interpret QM, or whether it even needs interpretation.As Niels Bohr insisted, quantum phenomena simply “are what they are,” requiring no deeper philosophical reckoning. For most practical purposes in science and technology, the classical view persists: nature is real, objective, and fully comprehensible through measurement, mathematics, and theory.

But for a growing number of thinkers, this is no longer tenable. As David Finkelstein put it, “The deeper you go into quantum mechanics, the harder it is to hold on to any absolutes.” citation for Finklestein’s quote The universe revealed by quantum mechanics is profoundly relational, participatory, and indeterminate at its core.

A central commitment of this project is that whatever a deeper understanding of reality entails, it must remain fully natural—grounded in nature as a whole, without recourse to supernatural interventions.

However, “natural” must be reimagined. It cannot remain restricted to what is merely physical, measurable, or material in the classical sense. Consciousness, meaning, value, and experience—these too are natural phenomena, even if they elude reduction to physical substrates.

The prevailing worldview of scientism—the belief that scientific investigation is the sole path to truth about the cosmos—rests on a crucial and often unexamined assumption: that everything real is ultimately physical. But this is not a scientific discovery; it is a philosophical presumption. Science cannot adjudicate the ultimate nature of being—it can only explore patterns within experience.

Thomas Nagel, among others, has argued for an alternative framework, a tertium quid or “third way” beyond the false dichotomy of reductive materialism and supernatural theism. A worldview that acknowledges mind and meaning as fundamental aspects of the natural order, alongside but not reducible to physical law.

This project explores some of the contours of such a framework: a natural spirituality that recognizes the profound interconnectedness of all that is, without abandoning scientific rigor or descending into dogmatic metaphysics. A significant implication of this broader perspective is a reframing of our assumptions about intelligence, consciousness, and the human place in the cosmos.

Western thought has long imagined Homo sapiens as the pinnacle of evolution, as we appear to be the only species capable of complex abstraction, symbolic reasoning, and technological mastery. Intelligence, by this account, is measured by the ability to manipulate matter and generate increasingly sophisticated models of the physical world.

But this view is increasingly difficult to sustain. Odontocetes—dolphins, orcas, sperm whales, and other toothed whales—possess brains comparable in size and complexity to ours. Their social structures, cultural transmission, and communication systems suggest that Odontocetes possess forms of intelligence and culture that may be as rich as humans, even if very differently expressed. Many species of Odontocetes have existed in more or less the same form for millions of years, with brains that are about the same as they were when the first hominids began to evolve from monkeys some 20 million years ago. We simply do not know, but it does not seem unreasonable to speculate, that during during those millions of years they used their large and biologically expensive brains to achieve individual and collective communication and connectedness on levels that are as difficult for us to imagine as the concept of a sphere was to Flatlanders.

If the universe is indeed saturated with mind-like properties, as panpsychism and related frameworks suggest, then intelligence need not take a single archetypal form. Complex abstraction and tool-use may be one expression of higher intelligence, but they are not necessarily its apex. Emotional depth, social cohesion, symbolic richness, aesthetic experience—these too may be markers of highly evolved consciousness. The recognition that humans are not alone among intelligent species compels a humbler, more expansive view of consciousness: not as a late, accidental bloom on an otherwise dead tree of matter, but as a pervasive and diverse phenomenon woven through the fabric of reality itself.

In contemporary philosophy of mind, much effort is spent attempting to define consciousness precisely—to specify its boundaries, mechanisms, and evolutionary function. These efforts, while valuable, often founder on the ambiguity and familiarity of the phenomenon itself. As one early commentator put it “Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.”  The 1989 International Dictionary of Psychology, entry written by Stuart Sutherland.

Although a veritable industry of consciousness studies has sprung up since then, not much has changed from it all. As David Chalmers and others have observed, consciousness remains elusive not because we fail to observe it, but because it is our primary mode of existence. Much like water to a fish, consciousness is something we are fully immersed in.  It is, as Galen Strawson suggests, the only thing whose intrinsic nature we can claim to know directly.

This project proposes that it is far less important to define consciousness than to learn how to use it more fully, deliberately, and effectively. Just as electricity revolutionized human life long before its essential nature was understood (and continues to have multiple, contradictory meanings or definitions), so too consciousness holds transformative potential even in the absence of theoretical clarity.

Rather than seeking final definitions for what is likely an indefinable phenomenon, we might better turn our efforts toward developing more skillful relationships with consciousness: cultivating attention, mindfullness, meaning, coherence, and creative power. Perhaps we should explore the profound ways that subjective phenomena shape the world and how they might be directed toward deeper insight, connection, and flourishing.

The ideas explored here draw on multiple but what appear to be ultimately related streams of thought. Various esoteric and contemplative traditions have long envisioned a central order of the cosmos—an intrinsic harmony beyond mechanism, including Neoplatonist conceptions, theosophical frameworks dating from the 14th century, and the alchemical pursuits of Isaac Newton and others. Monism in its various forms (some ancient) holds that everything ultimately consists of the same fundamental stuff, although there is considerable disagreement about the nature of that stuff. The dominant forms of monism in Western thought include: idealism (the idea that reality is fundamental mental or spiritual); philosophical materialism (also known as physicalism, the idea that reality is fundamentally physical); and various forms of neutral monism (that the single underlying stuff is neither mental nor physical but neutral or a mixture of both). In Hindu philosophy, Advaita Vedānta teaches that everything is Brahman (pure consciousness or existence itself). Panpsychist perspectives, also with deep historical roots, see mind-like qualities as fundamental to all things.

More recently, the discoveries of quantum physics led to David Bohm’s framework of deep connection between an underlying order beyond space and time (the implicate order) that unfolds into the observable world (the explicate order), and the idea of a psychophysical continuum of entangled inner and outer realities developed in a decades-long collaboration between Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung.

Taken alone, none of these streams offers a complete framework or worldview. But woven together, they suggest the outlines of a mind-centered cosmology: a framework in which consciousness is not an incidental phenomenon, but a core dimension of the unfolding universe. It is an unfinished and evolving picture—provisional and incomplete—and exploring it demands humility.  It is largely intuitive; our language (and thus the way we think about things) strains or is simply unable to express much about it. Just as the citizens of Flatland who didn’t outright reject the idea of a third dimension struggled to imagine it, many if not most of us are hindered by our preconceived ideas and an expectation of certainty.

But if we resist the temptation to cling to outdated certainties and instead open ourselves to the possibility of a vastly richer natural order, we may begin to glimpse a new horizon: a world in which mind and matter are no longer alien to one another, but aspects of a single, dynamic whole. We are at the very beginning of what may one day be recognized as a new age of consciousness. If this is so, it will not replace science, logic, or empirical inquiry, but rather expand the scope of what we understand to be real.

Certainties will remain elusive, but our models can be refined, our myths can evolve, and our conceptual lenses can widen. The task, as Wolfgang Pauli and others have urged, is not to abandon reason, but to construct a broader and deeper idea of reality—one that acknowledges mind as fundamental, honors experience as meaningful, and restores a sense of belonging within the vast and mysterious unfolding of existence.

My hope is that this project makes a small contribution to that ongoing task: a search for frameworks that better fit what we know, what we sense, and what we are only beginning to imagine.