Discussion on the implications that mind is a massless boson field or a property of matter as posited in the Fundamental Mind Theory (FMT) solutions to the mind combination problem. FMT Mind Combination Discussion The Physics of FMT FMT is developing a scientific framework for mind as a fundamental aspect of reality. Embracing the Wave Nature of Matter Makes the Quantum Realm Comprehensible Attempting to explain wave function collapse has led many philosophers and physicists to engage in wild speculation about the nature of reality, from believing the moon does not exist unless someone is looking at it, to infinite copies of each us living in infinite parallel universes, to denying that objective reality even exists. These views treat wave functions as real phenomena that exist in our universe whereas FMT views wave functions as mathematical models of the behavior of things that exist in our universe. FMT is a realist theory which asserts that matter, energy, mind, and the forces of nature are real phenomena that exist in our universe. Wave functions and wave function collapse are not real in FMT, they are mathematical models of the behavior of things that exist in our universe, just like every equation in classical physics. FMT takes the evidence from scientific experiments and combines it with evidence from human subjective experience, assuming that the overlap likely points the way towards better theories of mind and of reality more broadly. Since wave functions are mathematical models and there is zero scientific evidence for a multiverse, FMT asserts that we live in a single universe, with matter that has a real existence independent of whether or not anyone is observing it. FMT accepts our 1st person subjective experience as evidence that minds also exist in our universe. Renee Descartes' famous quote "I think therefore I am" acknowledges the obvious fact that our mind is the only thing that each of us can be 100% sure truly exists. Our minds exist, our minds observe, and our minds decide which actions to take based on events that occur in our lives. That our minds are observers fits with human intuition, sits on a robust foundation of scientific evidence, and does not violate any known scientific laws. In fact, the mere existence of mathematics, physics, and philosophy are predicated on the existence of a human mind to develop these disciplines as tools to investigate nature. The mind as an observer intuitively fits with human experience, explaining the feeling that we have free will, something modern science rejects based on the widespread metaphysical belief that everything in the universe can be explained by deterministic physical laws. Yet the quantum realm is completely indeterminate, providing the perfect substrate for mind to exert agency over matter, to exert its free will over matter. In a future post we will go down the rabbit hole of entanglement in more detail, but the short story is in 2020 Nobel prizes were awarded to scientists who experimentally proved that entanglement is a real phenomenon that violates Einstein's general relativity theory. Einstein's concept of a deterministic block universe has been invalidated; we do not live in a deterministic universe. Specifically, entanglement shows that local causation is a myth, meaning that science cannot explain the cause and effect relationships between objects in a finite space using equations that describe the particles and forces interacting in that finite space. A photon emitted by an exploding star billions of years ago in a distant galaxy can hit an alien's retina and instantly impact the properties of its entangled photon partner that is about to interact with your retina. Given the fundamental indeterminacy and lack of causation inherent in the quantum substrate of our universe, combined with the fact that simply observing matter influences its behavior, FMT asserts that the default assumption should be that humans have free will until proven otherwise, not the other way around as most scientists and philosophers assert. FMT asserts that your decision to read this discussion at this time was driven by the free will of your mind, not by the modern scientific view that massive numbers of deterministic particle interactions control everything you do as if you are a complex robot with a mind that has the illusion of free will because it literally cannot exert any control over any aspect of your body or your life. Quantum physics has invalidated the concept of a deterministic universe, unless one wants to believe that every elementary particle interaction throughout the 13.8 billion year history of our universe "splits" our universe into an infinite number of parallel universes where everything that could possibly happen does indeed happen in another universe. That there are an infinite number of you reading these words right now living slightly different lives, plus an infinitely number of universes where you are a doctor, lawyer, or construction worker, plus an infinite number where you have already died or were never born. This is called the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and it shows just how far some scientists and philosophers will go to avoid giving up on their metaphysical belief in a deterministic universe. Let's take a closer look at what scientists have actually learned about elementary particles and wave function collapse. Elementary particles are modeled using wave equations, implying that their intrinsic nature is wave-like versus particle-like. Quantum scale phenomena appear to our scientific instruments as energy patterns that lack any physical dimensions whatsoever, have no defined position nor momentum, can become entangled with one another and interact instantly over vast distances, and may or may not have any mass. The subset of elementary particles that form stable matter all have mass and will be referred to as matter waves in this discussion. Matter waves are spread out over a region of space and their behaviors are described mathematically by the Schrodinger wave equation. When our scientific instruments attempt to measure any properties of matter waves, they extract energy which appears as "particles" that suddenly have definite and measurable properties. The fact that matter sometimes appears as a particle and sometimes as a wave is called wave-particle duality. FMT asserts that the intrinsic nature of matter is as wave-like energy patterns that appear momentarily as classical particles when being measured or observed during energy transfer processes, after which they revert back to their intrinsic wave nature. A human scale analogy is to consider a particle as similar to a lightning bolt. A set of wave equations can be written to describe a storm cloud as matter waves that form an electromagnetic field relative to the earth below and spread out over the cloud's 3D structure and beyond. The field strength at each point will change as the cloud absorbs water vapor, changes shape, and drifts over the uneven contours of the earth below (i.e. taller and metallic objects are more likely to attract lightning thus impact the relative field strength at each point in the cloud). At some point the electromagnetic field strength exceeds the insulation strength of the atmosphere between specific points in the cloud and on earth, and a lightning bolt is generated to exchange electromagnetic energy between the cloud and the earth. The lightning bolt appears briefly, carries a specific and measurable amount of energy, and follows a specific and measurable path to the earth. The cloud is similar to a matter wave spread out over a region of space lacking specific and measurable properties, and the lightning bolt is similar to a particle that has specific and measurable properties but only appears briefly during an energy transfer event. The analogy is relevant because lightning bolts are actually made of a massive streams of electrons, which are matter waves that behave according to the principles and equations of quantum theory. Lightning bolts are literally high energy macroscopic quantum energy transfer events. Electrons in a storm cloud behave the same as they do in quantum experiments. They are spread out over a region of space existing in their intrinsic matter wave state, and appear only briefly as particles when a lightning bolt or measurement device extracts energy from the quantum system. In the storm cloud analogy the earth acts as a giant measurement device extracting energy from a quantum system, causing particles to appear very briefly in the form of a lightning bolt. Prior to the lightning strike, the lightning bolt could be viewed as existing in a superposition of many lightning bolts that could transfer energy to many different places on earth, analogous to an electron existing in a superposition of many electrons that could transfer energy to many different places in space. The wave equations describing the lightning bolt will suddenly "collapse" and become useless because they no longer describe the current state of the cloud after the lightning bolt strike. When a measurement occurs, matter waves "collapse" from their intrinsic spread out wave state in order to concentrate and transfer a portion of their energy to a measurement device, which always transfers in specific quanta of energy and at a specific point in space and time, causing our instruments to detect a particle in the classical sense. Particles and lightning bolts exist in the classical sense only momentarily during energy transfer events, rendering moot the wave equations that previously described the quantum system. The idea that particles or lightning bolts literally exist in a "superposition of states" is an antiquated view leftover from the classical physics era when particles were considered to be tiny 3D objects that had permanent existence with measurable properties. Neither particles nor lightning bolts have permanent existence nor do they have specific measurable properties when not transferring energy. Neither particles nor lightning bolts literally exist in multiple places at the same time; it is their intrinsic energy waves that are literally spread out over a region of space. Thinking that particles can exist in multiple places at once is a view that denies the intrinsic wave nature of matter. Matter waves are what actually exists, particles are energy transfer between matter waves. The Central Importance of the Electromagnetic Force in Scientific Investigation The electromagnetic force is the primary force of nature used to study the universe from a scientific standpoint. Consider the fact that there are no instruments that can directly detect the strong nuclear force nor the weak nuclear force. We infer the existence of both nuclear forces based on theoretical models that predict the behaviors of electromagnetic traces captured from collisions in particle accelerators. While inferential electromagnetic evidence is not as strong as direct evidence for these nuclear forces, the accuracy and explanatory value of the theoretical models are sufficiently robust for scientists to conclude that these forces exist and thus are considered settled science. This bears repeating - we cannot directly measure the strong nuclear force nor the weak nuclear force; the only evidence scientists have for their existence comes from the electromagnetic signatures of matter interactions. Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity explains gravity as the curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass. The first confirmation of relativity theory came in 1919 when Arthur Eddington measured the bending of star light during a solar eclipse. This evidence was based entirely on analyzing photons, the carriers of the electromagnetic force, emitted from distant stars. Subsequent confirmations involved the analysis of a variety of astronomical phenomena, all of which involve sophisticated electromagnetic detection systems. Relativity theory predicted the presence of gravitational waves, which were experimentally confirmed by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), an electromagnetic detection system that uses lasers. Quantum physicists have spent the past century searching for gravitons, hypothetical quantum particles that might carry the gravitational force, but no such particles have been found. And how have scientists been trying to detect gravitons? You guessed it, by looking for their electromagnetic signatures in particle accelerators, in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) detectors, and in cosmic events. The fact that the electromagnetic force is central to virtually all scientific investigation is not fully appreciated by the scientific community. Every instrument used by astrophysicists to study the cosmos is based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to theories of the large-scale universe. The instruments used by doctors and neuroscientists to study our brains and internal organs (e.g. EEG, MEG, MRI, fMRI, PET scans, CAT scans, etc.) all capture electromagnetic information and correlate it to biological theories. Every imaging instrument used by microbiologists and physicists to study cells, molecules, atoms, and quantum scale phenomena is based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to theories of the small-scale universe. In summary, every advanced scientific instrument used to study the universe from the largest to the smallest scales are based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to theories relevant to the scale. It stands to reason that the only instruments capable of testing FMT will be based on capturing electromagnetic information and correlating it to the theory. Whether mind is a property of matter, a massless boson, or something else entirely, FMT must be evaluated based on inferential electromagnetic evidence combined with the theory’s ability to explain the evidence, including its ability to explain anomalous evidence that existing theories of mind fail to explain. For this reason, much of the discussion of fundamental mind going forward will focus on the electromagnetic signatures of mind operating at various scales of matter. When we refer to minds as combining electromagnetically, this should be viewed as consistent with both the property and particle hypotheses for fundamental mind combination. FMT is still in the development phase, and at some point along the way we will put forth specific testable predictions, a necessary requirement for any credible scientific theory. These predictions will no doubt be based on predicting the electromagnetic signatures of mind operating at various scales of matter. One such prediction along with a possible testing platform was put forth in my Cellular Mind book which combines lucid dreaming testing protocols with UPE detection equipment. Once the state-of-art UPE equipment gains the resolution and fidelity to measure cellular scale electromagnetic information exchange, the hypothesis put forth in that theory can be tested. Molecules Electromagnetically Combine Their Minds to Form Cellular Scale Minds Every living cell is densely packed with billions of molecules, each generating a tiny electromagnetic field arising from the electromagnetic attraction between the protons and electrons that hold the molecule together. Billions of these tiny electromagnetic fields will collectively combine to form a unified and integrated electromagnetic field that surrounds and pervades the entire cell, increasingly being called biofields or bioelectric fields by the scientists who study them. This is analogous to the electromagnetic field detected by EEGs that surrounds and pervades the 87 billion neurons in the human brain and nervous system, just at a much smaller scale and many orders of magnitude weaker. Molecular structures such as centrioles, mitochondria, microtubules, DNA, mTor, and other molecules have been found to emit and absorb photons, evidence of energy and/or information exchange via cell-wide biofields. Biologists have identified a bewildering array of electromagnetic signals traveling between these molecules, signals that have been found to orchestrate the vast array of biological processes necessary to keep the cell alive. Scientists struggle to explain where and how these signals are generated, how the molecules that receive the signals know how to decode them, and how these signals lead to a range of possible actions that vary based on the content of the signals. The hypothesis that subcellular molecular structures have minds that communicate and coordinate their activities with one another offers an explanation for these currently unexplained behaviors. While the idea that molecules have minds will no doubt be viewed by some readers as simply impossible, these readers should recognize that the evidence cited on this website represents just a tiny fraction of the massive amount of evidence that exists in scientific literature related to molecular signaling, communications, and behaviors that appear intelligent yet lack any known causal driver under existing scientific paradigms. The preponderance of evidence not only fits with the Fundamental Mind Theory (FMT) hypothesis, FMT provides an explanation for a myriad of anomalous evidence that existing scientific theories simply cannot explain. This is why it is important to view the FMT evidence and theory with an open mind that is not limited by the unproven metaphysical views of materialism that are embedded deep within modern scientific paradigms. The cold hard truth is that many scientists and philosophers fail to recognize there is no scientific theory of mind based on the metaphysical views of materialism, which requires mind to somehow emerge from physical processes in complex matter structures such as brains. Materialism is a set of metaphysical assumptions that remain unproven by scientific experiment, no different than every other metaphysical view. Once a metaphysical view is proven by science, it ceases to be metaphysical and becomes part of physics. Despite what many scientists and philosophers may believe, science is not restricted to materialist metaphysics since science is about the objective search for truth, not a subjective search limited by unproven metaphysical assumptions. The scientific method is a tool for exploring the universe and scientific theories and equations predict the behavior of matter and energy in the universe at any scale. Consider intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), molecules that are in constant motion which scientists describe as “intrinsically disordered” because they lack a stable shape. But immediately before an IDP enters into a chemical reaction, it suddenly takes on the specific shape required to facilitate the specific reaction. At the same time a large number of molecules converge on the IDPs to form a phase separated droplet that surrounds the IDPs, providing an isolated environment and supporting atoms and charged ions to facilitate the reaction. Once the reaction occurs, the molecules that formed droplet quickly disperse. As discussed previously, a core "assumption" of modern science is that the most fundamental layer of reality is driven by “random” quantum processes Since IDPs and droplets are small enough to be influenced by quantum processes, random quantum processes should lead to random movements of IDPs and droplets. Indeed, this is one explanation for the intrinsic disorder of IDP shapes. Yet the seemingly intelligent behaviors of IDPs and droplets appear to be anything but random. Assuming their behaviors are driven by “random” quantum processes is simply naive and unscientific considering that millions of IDPs inside each cell are constantly taking on a variety of highly specific shapes unique to each reaction, are surrounded briefly by spontaneously forming droplets, and are precisely timed to facilitate a myriad of specific, complex, and integrated biological processes that are necessary to keep each cell alive. Consider that there are billions of molecules inside each cell engaged in millions of chemical reactions every second, which means modern scientific theory is predicated on the assumption that countless octillions of simultaneous random quantum processes are consistently causing the highly coordinated behaviors of billions of molecules inside each of your 30 trillion cells to maintain homeostatic processes that are far from equilibrium. Or we can accept the simpler explanation that the evidence suggests that molecules behave intelligently, communicating and coordinating their actions to keep their shared ecosystem - the cell - functioning properly. The scientific literature discussing both cellular and subcellular processes and signals is full of comments related to cells and molecules that "self-assemble" and/or "self-replicate." When scientists use these terms it means they cannot explain the process being studied as being driven by known scientific principles. If they could they wouldn't need to use words imply that molecules and cells behave as if they have a "self" that is building a structure that cannot be explained by existing science. "Epi-genetics" is another increasingly used term in scientific literature, this one referring to inheritable traits, memory, and/or complex processes that do not involve DNA, thus cannot be explained by existing theories of DNA and gene expression. "Epi" means "beyond" hence epigenetics means "beyond genetics." There are a number of epigenetic frameworks that describe epigenetic phenomena, but none of these frameworks are based on the principles and theories of chemistry and/or physics, hence they "describe" the phenomena as opposed to "explain" the phenomena. Consider that scientists have been watching cells divide in their microscopes for centuries. The molecules and organelles inside a fertilized human egg cell "self-replicate" and divide into two cells. The cells continue "Self-replicating" and "self-assemble" into a fetus over nine months. Scientists have imaged and described this process in incredible detail. Yet despite having a front-row seat, no theory has been developed to explain how cells can "self-replicate" nor "self-assemble" using scientific theories and principles. Scientists can watch cells create new life from a collection of non-living molecules in their microscopes but they cannot explain how this occurs using science. Before we can hope to explain how the first living cells emerged from non-living matter approximately 3 billion years ago, we first need to explain how new living cells are created from non-living matter 3 million times every second inside each of our bodies. Another increasingly used term in scientific literature discussing cellular and subcellular processes is "basal cognition." Basal means "base level" or "fundamental level" hence attributing phenomena to basal cognition effectively means attributing it to a base level or fundamental mind. E pigenetics, self-assembly, self-replication, and basal cognition are therefore terms that attribute various phenomena to unknown factors that have not been yet been explained by science. It is crystal clear to any scientists who can take a step back and look at the evidence from biology from a metaphysically agnostic vantage point, that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that we need new biophysical theories in order to explain life and mind. Consider our DNA, which contains templates for making proteins, the primary molecules used to build and operate cells. DNA encodes genes, but no genes have been found to encode information that specifies humans should have 2 hands, sensory systems, an array of internal organs, a brain in the head, nor that humans should even have a head. Genes do not specify whether cells should have organelles, membranes, or a nucleus. Genes do not specify the shapes, sizes, functions, nor locations of any subcellular, cellular, organ, or bodily-scale structure or function. DNA is a storage system for materials used to build and operate cells. It does not contain any blueprints nor instructions for building or operating organelles, cells, organs, or organisms. Consider what a gene literally is, a sequence of molecules typically strewn across multiple strands of DNA that were found to correlate with various bodily features such as the 16 genes that collectively encode eye color. The 16 genes are not located next to one another on the same chromosome, but instead are scattered along and across multiple chromosomes. The genes encode 16 different proteins that when blended together produce a particular shade of blue, brown, or green in the retinal cells of the human eye. Note that no genes were found that provide instructions that tell the molecules that are building a retinal cell where to find the proteins in the genome, how much of each protein to use when building the retinal cell, how many or where to build retinal cells, nor what eye parts the retinal cells must be attached to produce a working eye. Yet the molecules building retinal cells somehow know the correct quantity of each protein to use and where to find them on the various chromosomes. And the retinal cells somehow know how and where to combine themselves into a 3-dimensional structure with the correct shape-diameter-thickness of a retinal cell and what other parts to attach the retina to. There are no scientific laws or theories that can explain how molecules can build and operate subcellular structures. DNA is similar to a list of construction materials (such as steel, wood, copper, aluminum, concrete, and glass) that are needed to construct an office building. The view that DNA encodes deterministic blueprints and instructions for constructing and operating cells has long been rendered obsolete yet continues to be taught in biology classes and much of the scientific community still believes it to be true. Believing our DNA is a blueprint for building and operating a human is akin to believing that the list of construction materials (steel, wood, copper, aluminum, concrete, glass, rubber, plastic etc.) contains blueprints for building and operating an office building, including all of the complex electrical, electronic, plumbing, HVAC, architectural features, windows, and so forth. If one is open to the possibility that DNA has a mind that communicates and coordinates its activity with the other molecules inside cells, we suddenly have a possible explanation for the seemingly intelligent behaviors of the complex microscopic world inside our cells. Since DNA is one of the largest and most electromagnetically active molecules inside cells, it clearly plays an important and central role in guiding cellular activity. DNA is simply far more intelligent than modern science recognizes, which is as a molecule with zero intelligence that stores information. While most of th e scientific and philosophy communities remain entrenched in the belief that we live in a deterministic universe, there are a growing number of highly respected scientists and philosophers that recognize the deterministic assumptions underpinning modern scientific disciplines are inconsistent with evidence from quantum physics, which is by far the most accurate and most experimentally verified theory in the history of science. The quantum realm is fundamentally indeterministic, not deterministic. There is no theory that even puts forth a scientific hypothesis for how "consciousness" or "mind" can emerge from brain processes, cellular processes, molecular process, or quantum processes. A one sentence summary of the primary takeaway from quantum physics is "we do not live in a deterministic universe, and . I find this juxtaposition amusing and likely due to the extremely siloed approach to modern science where experts have deep knowledge of one or two highly specific topics to which they dedicate their career. Most scientists have little time to follow leading-edge scientific research across disciplines, which creates the opportunity for outsiders like myself to see the larger forest rather than study a single tree. Taking that line of thinking a step further, modern biology is assumed to be driven entirely by the laws of chemistry, which is assumed to be entirely driven by the laws of physics, which are assumed be driven by entirely random quantum processes that are completely unpredictable. Since every thing that exists in the universe is constructed with elementary quantum particles and fields which are fundamentally indeterminate and completely unpredictable, we can view the actions of every human as being driven by octillions (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000's) of random quantum processes, operating simultaneously on quadrillions of atoms inside an average human cell, which somehow cause millions of highly coordinated and precisely timed chemical reactions to occur every second inside every one of the 30 trillion cells that form your body. To make this sound even more ridiculous, these random quantum processes are assumed to drive every action you take, every thought you think, and every decision you have ever made, including the decision to be reading this paragraph at this very second. It is simply unscientific to believe this Modern scientific paradigms simply cannot offer a believable explanation for the goal directed behaviors, problem-solving skills, communication skills, cognition, and agency demonstrated by cells, organelles, and now molecules inside living organisms. Cognition and Agency as a Proxy for Mind Cellular Mind defines an organism as having a mind if it demonstrates cognition and agency that cannot be explained by existing science. The Oxford dictionary defines cognition as “the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses." Agency is defined in the Oxford dictionary as an “action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect.” Cognition is a proxy for mind and agency is a proxy for the mind’s ability to influence the behavior of physical structures. FMT extends this definition beyond what science generally considers an "organism" by applying it to all forms of matter. FMT asserts that molecules such as kinesin demonstrate cognition and agency that cannot be explained by existing science, concluding that it has a mind, and thus mind exists at the scale of molecules. An objective assessment absent all metaphysical biases and assumptions, of the enormous amount of molecular and cellular scale evidence demonstrating cognition and agency at all scales of life and now at the molecular scale, led Jon Lieff and I to conclude that mind exists at the scales of molecules and cells. We consider evidence of intelligent goal directed behavior and active communication between independent matter structures as requiring both cognitive skills and agency, our proxies for mind in a matter structure. The evidence clearly shows that cognition, agency, and communications are widespread phenomenon in nature, existing at the scales of humans, animals, insects, plants, fungi, single cell life, “non-living” viruses, and molecules inside cells. This led us to take a quantum leap and assume this pattern would continue one scale lower into the quantum realm, concluding that the cognitive agency of mind must be a fundamental aspect of the universe. Ask yourself if it seems more likely that the highly complex and coordinated behaviors of kinesin will one day be shown to be the result of "completely random” quantum processes that are not in pursuit of any goal whatsoever, or whether they point to an intelligent, non-random, goal-directed processes operating at the quantum scale. FMT asserts that mind exists in all scales of matter. Minds combine to form more complex minds as matter structures combine to form more complex matter structures. This is true from elementary particles to humans, the most complex configuration of matter in the known universe. We'll conclude with a quote from a 500 BCE Greek philosopher/mathematician who recognized the increasingly complex mind that appears in matter as it combines and scales into more complex forms. “Consciousness sleeps in the stone, dreams in the plant, awakes in the animal, and slowly becomes aware of itself in man.” -- Pythagoras Return to Theory Page

Blog discussing the scientific evidence of the human brain and mind. Despite centuries of brain research, no theory exists to explain how human brains can generate a mind. In fact, this hypothesis is directly challenged by modern scientific research on cellular scale intelligence. We believe "all" cells in your body create your mind, not just brain cells. Keyword Search General Cellular Mind Dropdown New Page General Cellular Mind Blog Cellular Mind New Page New Page New Page Search Results 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

Evidence that single cells behaves as if they have minds that experience their world. Individual cells actively communicate with other cells via a complex electro-chemical language that scientists are only in the earliest stages of trying to comprehend. The ability to communicate via complex language is a strong indicator of the presence of a mind. Keyword Search Humans Animals Plants Cells Microbes Organelles Viruses Molecules Mysteries 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

Evidence that molecules behave as if they have minds that experience their world. Molecules and molecular clusters inside cells communicate and coordinate their activity, often changing shapes to execute the processes of life. These behaviors lie beyond current scientific description hence we view them as evidence of molecular scale mind. Keyword Search General Cellular Mind Dropdown New Page General Cellular Mind Blog Cellular Mind New Page New Page New Page Search Results 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

World famous theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind discusses the difficulties in understanding consciousness from a physics perspective. World renown theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind's 7/18/26 lecture "10 Terrifying Reasons Scientists Now Believe Consciousness Is Breaking the Laws of Physics" 10 Terrifying Reasons Scientists Now Believe Consciousness Is Breaking the Laws of Physics Artist Name 00:00 / 24:33 Click to Listen to Lecture Full Transcript Physics describes everything. The motion of planets, the behavior of electrons, the curvature of spacetime, the decay of radioactive nuclei, the origin of the universe itself. All of it falls within the domain of physical law described by equations that have been tested against reality to extraordinary precision across an enormous range of scales and conditions. There is precisely one thing that physics does not describe, has never described, and has no current framework for beginning to describe what it is like to experience any of this. The redness of red, the pain of a headache, the specific feeling of understanding a difficult idea. These are not at the edges of physics. They are inside it happening in the brains of the very physicists who write the equations and they appear nowhere in those equations. Here are 10 specific reasons why this absence is not a minor gap waiting to be filled, but a problem severe enough that some of the most serious physicists and philosophers of the past century have concluded that consciousness may be genuinely incompatible with physics as it currently stands. The first is the hard problem itself. The specific question of why physical processes in a brain produce subjective experience at all. This is distinct from the question of how the brain processes information, encodes memories, generates behavior or integrates sensory inputs. All of which are in principle amenable to neuroscientific explanation. The hard problem named and precisely formulated by the philosopher David Chalmer's in 1995 is the question of why any of this physical processing is accompanied by inner experience rather than occurring entirely in the dark without any phenomenal quality at all. There is no principle in physics that says physical processes should feel like anything. The equations of quantum mechanics, general relativity, statistical mechanics, and all other established frameworks describe state evolution, probability distributions, and correlations between observable quantities. None of them contain the concept of inner experience and none of them predict that complex information processing should be accompanied by the existence of a point of view. The second is the quantum measurement problem which has troubled physicists since the 1920s and has never been resolved despite nearly a century of effort. In quantum mechanics, physical systems evolve according to the Schrodinger equation in superpositions of multiple possible states until a measurement occurs at which point the system appears to adopt a definite value for the measured quantity. The problem is that the Schrodinger equation itself describes a continuous linear deterministic evolution that never collapses anything. The collapse to a definite outcome is an additional postulate added by hand without any derivation from the underlying mathematics. The physicist John von Noman in his 1932 mathematical formalization of quantum mechanics showed rigorously that if the Schrodinger equation applies universally, the measurement device itself enters a superposition when it interacts with the measured system and the lab containing the device enters a superposition. and the physicist reading the result enters a superposition all the way up until a conscious observer registers a definite result. Von Noman concluded that the collapse occurs at the interface between the physical world and consciousness and his collaborator Eugene Vner developed this line of argument explicitly proposing that consciousness plays a fundamental role in collapsing quantum superpositions. This remains one of the most controversial and unresolved positions in the foundations of physics. But it was proposed not by mystics but by two of the most technically capable mathematicians physics has ever produced. The third is the binding problem. A specific neurophysiological puzzle that has resisted explanation for decades. When you perceive a red apple moving across a table, your visual system processes color information in one cortical region, motion information in another, shape in another, and spatial location in yet another, each through distinct neural populations using distinct computational mechanisms. Yet your experience is of a single unified object with all these properties simultaneously present. Not four separate perceptions of color, motion, shape, and location, but one integrated experience. How the brain binds these separately processed features into a unified conscious percept. The synchronization of neural oscillations at the gamma frequency around 40 hertz has been proposed as a binding mechanism. But detailed investigation has not confirmed this hypothesis as a complete explanation. and the theoretical question of why any synchronization of electrical activity in physically distinct brain regions should produce a unified subjective experience remains entirely open. The fourth is the violation of causal closure. Standard physicalism, the position that everything that happens has a complete physical cause, implies that the physical processes in your brain are entirely causally sufficient to determine all your behavior with no additional contribution from non-physical mental states. But this seems to contradict the phenomenology of deliberate action. it feels from the inside as if your decision to raise your arm is caused by a conscious intention, a mental event rather than being the product of neural processes that simply occur without your experiential involvement. If physicalism is correct, the feeling of intending is itself a neural process that causes the arm movement through physical mechanisms with no explanatory role for the phenomenal character of the intention, the way it feels. If consciousness plays no causal role in behavior, it becomes difficult to explain why it exists at all since evolution would have no mechanism for selecting for traits with no behavioral consequences. But if consciousness does play a causal role, it seems to violate the causal closure of physics by introducing non-physical causes into a domain that physics claims to fully account for. The fifth reason is the specific failure of every neural correlate of consciousness to explain consciousness itself. Neuroscience has made genuine and impressive progress in identifying neural correlates. The specific patterns of brain activity that accompany specific conscious experiences. Brain imaging studies have identified regions whose activity is reliably associated with visual awareness, with the experience of pain, with the recognition of familiar faces, and with many other specific phenomenal states. But identifying the neural correlate of a conscious state is not the same as explaining why that neural state is conscious rather than merely a highly complex pattern of electrical activity in the dark. A perfect neural correlation between a specific firing pattern and the experience of redness tells us that experience X is reliably accompanied by brain state Y but gives no account of why brain state Y should feel like anything at all. The explanatory gap between neural correlate and phenomenal experience is precisely as wide after the correlation is established as it was before. The sixth reason concerns integrated information theory or IIT, developed by the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin. IIT proposes that consciousness is identical to a specific kind of integrated information processing quantified by a mathematical measure called phi which captures how much information is generated by a system as a whole beyond what is generated by the sum of its parts. Systems with high phi are conscious and the theory implies that consciousness is not exclusive to biological brains but is present wherever the relevant information integration structure exists, including potentially in certain artificial systems or in physical substrates not normally considered candidates for consciousness. The disturbing implication of IIT is that consciousness may be a fundamental property of certain physical organizations rather than something produced by brains specifically, which either trivializes consciousness by making it ubiquitous or profoundly changes what we mean by the physical world. The seventh reason is the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis developed by the mathematician Roger Penrose and the anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff which proposes that consciousness involves quantum gravitational effects occurring in microtubule structures within neurons submicroscopic protein filaments that form part of the cellular cytoskeleton. Penrose's argument developed in his books, The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind, begins from Godel’s incompleteness theorems and argues that human mathematical insight involves a non-computational process that cannot be replicated by any classical algorithm. Penrose identifies quantum gravity at the level of the plank scale as the physical mechanism underlying this non-computational process. The Orch OR hypothesis remains highly controversial and has attracted substantial criticism from both neuroscientists and quantum physicists. But it represents a serious attempt by a field’s medal winning mathematician to connect consciousness specifically to the deepest and least understood regime of physical law where quantum mechanics and general relativity intersect in ways that no complete theory yet describes. The eighth reason is the specific challenge posed by the existence of qualia, the intrinsic non- relational phenomenal properties of conscious experience. to any purely functionalist account of mind. A functionalist theory of consciousness holds that what makes a mental state the state it is depends entirely on its functional role, its causal relationships to inputs, outputs, and other mental states rather than on any intrinsic phenomenal properties. The philosopher Frank Jackson's famous thought experiment, the knowledge argument, challenges this position through the example of Mary, a color scientist who has lived her entire life in a black and white room and has learned all the physical facts about color vision, all the wavelengths, all the neural responses, all the processing algorithms without ever seeing red. When Mary finally leaves the room and sees red for the first time, does she learn something new? Most people's intuition is that she does. That no amount of physical and functional information about color processing prepares you for the experience of seeing red. If this intuition is correct, qualia are not reducible to functional or physical properties. and consciousness contains something that physics and neuroscience working on the functional level can never fully capture. The ninth reason involves the specific challenge posed by anesthesia. General anesthetics abolish consciousness reliably and reversibly through a variety of chemical mechanisms. halogenated ethers, propofol, ketamine, nitrous oxide that act on different molecular targets and are chemically unrelated to each other. Yet they all produce the same result. The complete elimination of subjective experience while leaving many neural processes intact. The puzzle is not simply that anesthetics work. that can be partly understood at the mechanistic level, but that the fine line between consciousness and its absence apparently corresponds to a dramatic and total qualitative change in the subjective character of brain states rather than a gradual diminution. This all or nothing character of anesthetic induced unconsciousness suggests that consciousness is not simply a matter of more or less neural activity but involves a specific organizational property that either exists or does not. A property that anesthetics eliminate while leaving behind enough neural activity to support many complex physiological functions. The 10th reason is perhaps the most fundamental and it returns to where we began . Physics as currently constituted describes the evolution of physical states, the correlations between measurements, the transformation of energy and information. It describes structure and dynamics. What it does not describe and has never had a framework for describing is why any of this structure and dynamics should be accompanied by an experiencing subject. Why the universe should contain anything more than patterns of matter and energy evolving through time according to mathematical laws. Why there should be anything that it is like to be part of this universe at all. The existence of consciousness is in this sense not a problem within physics but a problem for physics. A feature of reality that current physical theory cannot accommodate without either expanding its conceptual framework beyond anything currently available or accepting that the physical description of reality is incomplete in a way that may never be fully addressed within the current paradigm. What all 10 of these reasons have in common is that they are not the concerns of philosophers alone. They have been taken seriously by physicists, by von Neumann, Wigner, Penrose and others precisely because they represent genuine technical failures of the current physical framework to account for something that undeniably exists. The equations work. The experiments confirm them. And somewhere inside the systems those equations describe, there is something it is like to understand them. Physics has no account of that last fact. And the 10 reasons above are 10 different ways of expressing precisely what that absence implies. I want to revisit several of the 10 reasons with additional depth because each one has dimensions that the introductory treatment could not fully develop. Return to the quantum measurement problem and consider the specific experimental evidence that has accumulated around what is sometimes called the observer effect. The double slit experiment in its quantum mechanical version produces an interference pattern when particles pass through two slits without any attempt to determine which slit each particle passed through. The interference pattern disappears when a measuring device is placed to detect the slit each particle passes through. Even if no human observer actually looks at the measurement results, this result has been replicated extensively and is not in dispute. What remains disputed is the interpretation whether the relevant threshold is the interaction with the measuring device, the amplification of the quantum event to a macroscopic record or the involvement of a conscious observer. Specifically, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment performed in various forms since 1978 showed that the presence or absence of an interference pattern could in principle be determined after the particle had already passed through the slits based on whether a measurement was made downstream. This suggests a temporally strange relationship between quantum events and their classical outcomes that some physicists have taken as evidence that observation plays a fundamental role in determining physical reality rather than merely passively recording it. Return to the binding problem and consider what the neuroscience of split-brain patients reveals about the unity of consciousness. Patients whose corpus callosum, the major fiber bundle connecting the two hemispheres of the brain, have been surgically severed for medical reasons display behaviors suggesting that the two hemispheres can operate as partially independent cognitive systems, each with limited access to the processes of the other. When an object is presented exclusively to the left visual field, which is processed primarily by the right hemisphere, split brain patients cannot name it verbally because language is typically left hemisphere dominant but can correctly retrieve it with the left hand. Roger Sperry and Michael Gaziniga, who systematically studied these patients beginning in the 1960s in work that earned Sperry the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1981, described the results as suggesting the existence of two separate streams of consciousness within a single skull following the surgery. This raises a profound question. If consciousness can be divided by severing a fiber bundle, what was unifying in the first place and what does that unification consist of at the physical level? Return to the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR hypothesis and consider the specific empirical evidence both for and against that is accumulated since the hypothesis was first proposed. The primary challenge to Orch OR from a neuroscientific standpoint is that biological systems at body temperature are expected to be far too warm and far too noisy for the kind of quantum coherent states that Penrose and Hammer postulate in microtubules to survive long enough to play any functional role. Quantum coherence, the maintenance of definite phase relationships between superposition quantum states, is typically destroyed by interactions with the thermal environment on time scales of femtoseconds in complex biological systems. While the neural processes associated with conscious experience operate on time scales of milliseconds or longer, a discrepancy of many orders of magnitude. defenders of Orch or have proposed that biological systems may possess specific structural features that protect quantum coherent states against thermal decoherence. A controversial claim for which direct evidence remains limited. Counterintuitively, evidence from other biological systems has shown that quantum coherence can survive for longer than naively expected in warm, wet environments. The photosynthetic light harvesting complexes studied extensively following a 2007 paper by Gregory Engel and collaborators at Berkeley showed signatures of quantum coherence persisting on time scales relevant to energy transfer and biological structures at physiological temperatures. Though subsequent analysis has disputed whether this coherence plays a functional role in photosynthesis efficiency, the magnetic compass of migratory birds is understood to involve quantum entanglement of radical pairs in the eye, surviving long enough to provide directional sensitivity to the Earth's magnetic field. These examples demonstrate that biology can, in specific contexts, exploit quantum effects that would have been dismissed as irrelevant on naive thermal grounds, which does not validate or specifically, but does undermine the simplest objections to the idea that quantum effects could play some role in neural function. Return finally to the deepest question underlying all 10 of these reasons. The question of why the universe contains consciousness at all. This question has a specific non- theological scientific formulation that connects it to the finetuning problem in cosmology. The universe's physical constants are set the values that permit not only the existence of complex chemistry and biology, but specifically the existence of organisms capable of conscious experience and of developing scientific theories about the universe's structure. The physicist Brandon Carter formulated the anthropic principle in 1973 to address this coincidence. We can only observe a universe compatible with our existence. So any universe containing observers will necessarily appear fine-tuned for their existence from those observer’s perspectives. But this reasoning applies only if consciousness is a necessary consequence of sufficiently complex physical organization, which is precisely what the hard problem denies. If consciousness is not predicted by physical law, if it is an additional feature of reality beyond what physics describes, then the anthropic principle provides no explanation for why this additional feature should be present. The existence of consciousness, if taken seriously as something genuinely beyond current physical theory, may require either that physical theory be expanded to account for it or that consciousness itself be taken as a primitive feature of reality. A possibility that changes not only neuroscience and philosophy, but the entire conceptual foundation of what physics is trying to describe. Return to Explanatory Gaps

Evidence that cells of of the human body have minds that experience their world. The cells that form your body communicate with each other, coordinate their activity to keep you alive, and solve problems that post risks to your survival. Your cells electromagnetically combine their cellular scale bodies and minds to form your human scale body and mind. Keyword Search Humans Animals Plants Cells Microbes Organelles Viruses Molecules Mysteries 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

Blog posts directly discussing the implications of the Fundamental Mind Interpretation of physics (FMI) The Fundamental Mind Interpretation (FMI) blog assumes readers are familiar with the framework and hypothesis discussed on the FMI page. 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

Introducing Jon Lieff & Mike Rowen, co-founders of SearchingForMind.com, and collaborators on the development of Fundamental Mind Theory, which asserts that mind is a fundamental aspect of our universe. About Searching For Mind Searching For Mind is a website & blog focused on the cross-disciplinary scientific evidence related to consciousness in any form and at every scale of reality. The blog was started in 2012 by neuroscientist Dr. Jon Lieff and was focused primarily on the communications occurring between and within cells, culminating in Jon's book The Secret Language of Cells in 2020. Jon's book discusses the compelling scientific evidence for a complex cellular scale language that science has yet to decode, evidence that individual cells have minds that communicate and collaborate with other cells. In early 2024 Jon met Mike Rowen, independent researcher and author of Cellular Mind . Mike's book presents "Cellular Mind Theory" (CMT) which argues that the human mind is not generated by the brain, but by the 30 trillion cells that form the human body. CMT leverages modern scientific evidence from neuroscience, cell biology, and physics to explain how cellular scale minds can electromagnetically combine to form the human mind. Jon & Mike have been collaborating since they met, exploring scientific evidence for mind below the scale of cells including molecular and quantum scale matter. They are developing a scientific framework to support their hypothesis that mind is a fundamental aspect of our universe at the quantum scale. The goal of this website is to provide a rigorous scientific review of the evidence supporting their evolving theory, with the full theory expected to be published in a joint sequel titled Searching For Mind targeted at a general audience with expected publication in 2028. Jon Lieff Jon Lieff MD is a pioneer in synthesizing the latest scientific discoveries in molecular biology, cellular biology, medical science, and neuroscience. He is a groundbreaking integrator of the fields of biology, neuroscience, medicine, neurology, and psychiatry, a creative innovator of major health programs, and consultant to biomedical companies. His medical degree is from Harvard Medical School and his BA in mathematics is from Yale University. He is past president of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry and a co-founder the major journal The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. Dr. Lieff wrote an award winning blog on his website SearchingfortheMind.com and wrote the pioneering book, The Secret Language of Cells, which Andrew Weil MD called “a new paradigm for understanding health and disease” and Ray Kurzweil called “a must read… to understand modern biology and advanced medical science.” Jon's Story Mike Rowen Mike is a retired electrical engineer, business strategy consultant, corporate executive, entrepreneur, and holder of 20 U.S. patents. He has a lifelong passion for science and has been following leading-edge developments in quantum physics, neuroscience, biology, cosmology, and consciousness research for more than 40 years. His career success has always been rooted in his creative problem-solving skills combined with rigorous, fact-based analytical and logical reasoning. One of his retirement goals is to apply his skills to scientific mysteries that he has been pondering for decades — specifically, the human mind, the origin of life, the origin of the universe, and the nature of reality at the quantum scale. He chose the human mind as his first target which resulted in his book Cellular Mind. The book connects the evidence from neuroscience and cellular biology to make the case that each of the 30 trillion cells that form your body has a mind that experiences the world inside your body. It also argues that your cells electromagnetically combine their cellular-scale minds to form your human-scale mind which experiences the world outside of your body. Mike's Story Contact Contact * Name * Email * Message Submit

Evidence that viruses behave as if they have minds that experience their world. Viruses are considered a "non-living" form of matter because they lack metabolic processes. Yet viruses attack and take over much larger cells, reproduce, communicate, and coordinate their activity with viruses in other cells. These behaviors suggest that viruses have minds. Keyword Search General Cellular Mind Dropdown New Page General Cellular Mind Blog Cellular Mind New Page New Page New Page Search Results 此語言尚未有已發佈之文章 文章發佈後將於此處顯示。

A discussion of the incompleteness of physics at every scale of the universe Physics is Incomplete at Every Scale of the Universe Michael Rowen July 17, 2026 Physics, chemistry, and biology comprise a set of theories and models developed to provide causal explanations for the behavior of matter and energy in the universe at different scales. While science has made incredible progress over the centuries, a significant amount of anomalous evidence gathered by scientists that lacks causal integration into existing scientific theories resulting in explanatory gaps at every scale. This discussion will highlight the major explanatory gaps at different scales of the universe to illustrate the incompleteness of existing scientific theories. This incompleteness argues for taking a pragmatic approach when interpreting what scientific theories and evidence might be telling us about the intrinsic nature of reality. Cosmic Scale Explanatory Gaps Matter-Antimatter Imbalance: The Big Bang hypothesis is the leading candidate for an explanation for the origin of the universe. When the standard model of cosmology (the Lambda Cold Dark Matter cosmological model, or LCDM) is applied to the Big Bang hypothesis, it predicts the universe should contain equal amounts of matter and antimatter, yet the observable universe is dominated almost entirely by matter. The theory to explain why matter and antimatter behave differently (Charge-Parity or CP symmetry violation) was recently confirmed in a particle collider experiment in 2025. Perplexingly, the amount of CP violation predicted by quantum physics is many orders of magnitude too small to account for the matter-antimatter asymmetry observed in the universe, suggesting the existence of new sources of CP violation beyond those predicted by current theory. This anomaly is genuinely existential because without it, matter and antimatter would have annihilated each other completely after the Big Bang, leaving a universe of pure energy and no matter whatsoever. That we exist at all is a direct consequence of unknown physics that modern science cannot account for. Hubble Tension: Two highly precise methods for measuring the expansion rate of our universe (the Hubble constant) yields conflicting results. Estimates using the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation from the early universe and estimates using specific types of stars and supernovae in galaxies deviate by more than 6 sigma of standard deviation (99.99966% confidence the deviation is real). This "Hubble Tension" is widely interpreted as a sign that new physics is required to reconcile these two precise measurements in order to explain the expansion rate of the universe. Cosmic Dipole Anomaly: The "Cosmological Principle" states that the large-scale universe is homogeneous and isotropic, a foundational assumption in the LCDM. A key prediction of this principle is that if the CMB temperature exhibits a directional dipole due to our motion through space, surveys of distant radio galaxies and quasars should show an identical dipole. Yet another deviation between theory and measurement based on analysis of over 1 million radio sources and half million quasars has now reached 5-sigma (99.99994% confidence). The tradition in science is that theories are invalidated or confirmed by anomalies that reach the 6-sigma confidence level, which seems likely in the near future as upcoming surveys are expected to reach 6-sigma. This anomaly shows that at least one of the core assumptions in cosmological principle that supports the LCDM is wrong, specifically the assumption of homogeneity and/or isotropy that underpin nearly every equation in modern cosmology. Constants of Nature: The "cosmological constant problem" relates to the extreme discrepancy between theoretical quantum vacuum energy density calculated using Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and the hypothetical dark energy (Lambda, or "L" in LCDM) that is hypothesized to be the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe. QFT predicts vacuum energy that is 120 orders of magnitude larger than what is inferred by cosmic expansion. This is widely regarded as the single most embarrassing prediction in the entire history of science (known as the "Vacuum Catastrophe"). A much broader issue related to the constants of nature is the "fine tuning problem." This involves 26+ constants of nature that appear to be set with extraordinary precision to values that enable the existence of stars, planets, atoms, and life. If even one of these 26+ constants was changed by just a few percentage points life as we know it could not exist in our universe. The constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for intelligent life to emerge in our universe. Fine tuning is not something that will "one day be explained by known physics" because these constants are "inputs" to existing physics theories as opposed to predictions that can be made using first principles. This means that any explanation for why these constants have the values they have lies far beyond current science and thus remains in the category of metaphysical interpretation. The debate on fine tuning is whether the values of the constants are the result of random or non-random factors. The leading random speculation is that we live in a "multiverse" that contains an infinite number of parallel universes where every possible combination of the 26+ constants is expressed in a unique universe, and since we observe the constants that we do means we live in one of the extremely rare universes that can support life. The leading non-random speculation is "intelligent design" which views fine tuning as evidence of an intelligent designer that exists beyond our universe, such as a universal mind or a God. Both views are "consistent" with existing scientific evidence and theory, but neither is "supported" by it, thus both remain pure metaphysical speculation on par with one another that should be relegated to one's personal belief system as opposed to being framed as supported by science. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): The CMB is the oldest light in the universe and has been mapped with extraordinary precision by modern technology. At small angular scales the CMB matches the homogeneity and isotropic assumptions of the LCDM almost perfectly. But at large angular scales anomalies appear that are steadily rising in their statistical confidence, but still well below 6-sigma. Particularly striking is that these anomalies appear to suggest the large-scale structure of the universe may have a preferred direction in the distribution of matter that is aligned with the plane of our solar system (referred to as the "Axis of Evil" by cosmologists who are deeply troubled by this finding). If confirmed in the future, this anomaly would independently invalidate the cosmological principle and thus the LCDM. The LCDM Model Itself: Modern physics cannot explain the causal factors behind the accelerating expansion of the universe, leading to the dark energy hypothesis (the "L" in LCDM) to provide the missing repulsive force necessary to explain why galaxies are receding away from us at an accelerating rate. Meanwhile our most accurate theory of gravity is contained within Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which treats gravity as the curvature in the fabric of spacetime due to the presence of mass. But Einstein’s theory of gravity breaks down at the largest scales of the universe, as evidenced by the fact that it cannot explain the causal factor(s) that keep stars orbiting in galaxies as opposed to flying off into interstellar space. This has led to the "Cold Dark Matter" hypothesis (the "CDM" of LCDM) providing the missing mass necessary for relativity theory to explain the existence of galaxies. “Dark” in the context of these two hypothetical phenomena relates to the fact that neither the missing mass nor missing energy interacts with any of our existing scientific instruments, making them completely invisible to modern science, hence the term "dark." This hypothetical dark energy and dark matter together account for over 95% of the matter and energy that physicists believe exists in our universe, which helps to illustrate why the LCDM is facing so many fundamental challenges from anomalous evidence. This means that the entirety of existing physics describes less than 5% of what physicists believe exists in our universe, a sobering illustration that physics is incomplete at the largest scale of the universe. Human Scale Explanatory Gaps The Mystery of Life: The incredible complexity of cellular life defies scientific explanation as evidenced by the absence of theories for the origin of life, embryo development, and how cells communicate and coordinate activity with one another. Consider that scientists have been watching cells divide in their microscopes for centuries, imaging and describing the process in incredible detail. Yet despite having this front-row seat, no theory has been developed to explain how cells can create new life from a collection of non-living molecules using the laws and theories of physics, chemistry and/or biology. Before we can ever hope to explain how the first living cells emerged from a collection of non-living molecules 3.5 billion years ago, we first need to explain how living cells are created from non-living molecules 3.8 million times every second inside each of our bodies. The Mystery of Evolution: The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" combines Darwin's theory of natural selection with the hypothesis that random DNA copying errors occurring during reproductive cycles are the underlying events that lead to evolutionary mutations. This was a strong hypothesis when it was first formulated 70+ years ago, but subsequent research has largely invalidated it. An example of the inadequacy of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis can be seen in a 2019 experiment performed by developmental biologist Michael Levin of Tuft's University [1]. The experiment involved placing worms in a barium chloride solution which dissolves the heads of the worms but did not kill the cells in the rest of the bodies. In five weeks, the worms grew new heads that were able to survive in the barium chloride solution. Genetic analysis of the worms found that 9 genes were changed during the development of the new barium chloride-resistant heads. This means the cells of the worms found new proteins to produce barium chloride resistant heads and subsequently encoded the proteins in the worm’s edited genome to pass on to future generations. This single experiment directly refutes the modern evolutionary synthesis by demonstrating that: Random DNA copying errors are not the driver of this mutation. Evolution does not require eons of natural selection - it requires just 5 weeks in this experiment. The mutation in this experiment can only be explained as the result of some unknown, non-random, goal directed process related to the relentless pursuit of survival by the cells of the worms. Despite evidence of this magnitude directly contradicting the modern evolutionary synthesis, it remains the default theory taught in biology classes at all levels because no alternative theory has gained sufficient support from the broader evolutionary science community to supplant it as the mainstream evolution paradigm. This is similar to the LCDM model persisting despite being incomplete and having a flawed assumption in its framework. Both theories sit on scaffolding built on "randomness" assumptions that recent evidence is demonstrating is clearly "non-random." The next gen models for both phenomena will likely replace randomness assumption with non-random factors. The Mystery of Consciousness: There are many ways to illustrate the difficulty in explaining consciousness with existing physics. One method was articulated in the proposed solutions to the combination problem which discussed how the “quantitative, 3rd person, objective, physical, external behavior” theories and models of physics have been unable to explain the “qualitative, 1st person, subjective, internal, mental experiences” of the human mind, arguing the hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable by existing science because the attributes of physics and mind are polar opposites of one another and thus have no overlap from which to construct a scientific theory of mind. Another way to illustrate the problem is to quote a July 2026 lecture by theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind who articulated 10 arguments for why consciousness “may be genuinely incompatible with physics as it currently stands.” Susskind's views are featured here because (a) they capture the essence of the macro-argument, (b) he is one of the most respected and accomplished theoretical physicists alive today, and (c) he is a personal favorite of mine because he focuses on facts and evidence without metaphysical bias. Below are selected quotes from his lecture which summarize his 10 arguments. The full 24 minute lecture can be listened to by clicking here . The Hard Problem of Consciousness. “Why physical processes in a brain produce subjective experience at all…The equations of quantum mechanics, general relativity, statistical mechanics, and all other established frameworks describe state evolution, probability distributions, and correlations between observable quantities. None of them contain the concept of inner experience and none of them predict that complex information processing should be accompanied by the existence of a point of view.” The Measurement Problem and Associated Collapse of Wave Functions. “The physicist John von Neumann concluded that the collapse occurs at the interface between the physical world and consciousness and his collaborator Eugene Wigner developed this line of argument explicitly proposing that consciousness plays a fundamental role in collapsing quantum superpositions. This remains one of the most controversial and unresolved positions in the foundations of physics. But it was proposed not by mystics but by two of the most technically capable mathematicians physics has ever produced.” The Binding Problem. “When you perceive a red apple moving across a table, your visual system processes color information in one cortical region, motion information in another, shape in another, and spatial location in yet another, each through distinct neural populations using distinct computational mechanisms. Yet your experience is of a single unified object with all these properties simultaneously present….How the brain binds these separately processed features into a unified conscious percept….why any synchronization of electrical activity in physically distinct brain regions should produce a unified subjective experience remains entirely open.” The Violation of Causal Closure. “Standard physicalism….implies that the physical processes in your brain are entirely causally sufficient to determine all your behavior with no additional contribution from non-physical mental states…If consciousness plays no causal role in behavior, it becomes difficult to explain why it exists at all since evolution would have no mechanism for selecting for traits with no behavioral consequences. But if consciousness does play a causal role, it seems to violate the causal closure of physics by introducing non-physical causes into a domain that physics claims to fully account for.” The Failure of Neural Correlates to Explain Consciousness. “Identifying the neural correlate of a conscious state is not the same as explaining why that neural state is conscious rather than merely a highly complex pattern of electrical activity in the dark…The explanatory gap between neural correlate and phenomenal experience is precisely as wide after the correlatio n is established as it was before.” Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) “proposes that consciousness is identical to a specific kind of integrated information processing…implies that consciousness is not exclusive to biological brains but is present wherever the relevant information integration structure exists…The disturbing implication of IIT is that consciousness may be a fundamental property of certain physical organizations rather than something produced by brains specifically, which either trivializes consciousness by making it ubiquitous or profoundly changes what we mean by the physical world.” Penrose & Hameroff’s Orch OR Theory “proposes that consciousness involves quantum gravitational effects occurring in microtubule structures within neurons…begins from Godel’s incompleteness theorems and argues that human mathematical insight involves a non-computational process that cannot be replicated by any classical algorithm…The Orch OR hypothesis remains highly controversial…but it represents a serious attempt by a (Nobel) winning mathematician to connect consciousness specifically to the deepest and least understood regime of physical law where quantum mechanics and general relativity intersect in ways that no complete theory yet describes.” The Existence of Qualia, “the intrinsic non-relational phenomenal properties of conscious experience…qualia are not reducible to functional or physical properties, and consciousness contains something that physics and neuroscience working on the functional level can never fully capture.” Anesthetics “abolish consciousness reliably and reversibly through a variety of chemical mechanisms…The fine line between consciousness and its absence apparently corresponds to a dramatic and total qualitative change in the subjective character of brain states rather than a gradual diminution. This all or nothing character of anesthetic induced unconsciousness suggests that consciousness is not simply a matter of more or less neural activity but involves a specific organizational property that either exists or does not. A property that anesthetics eliminate while leaving behind enough neural activity to support many complex physiological functions.” Lack of a Physics Framework for an Experiencing Subject. “Physics as currently constituted describes the evolution of physical states, the correlations between measurements, the transformation of energy and information…What it does not describe and has never had a framework for describing is why any of this structure and dynamics should be accompanied by an experiencing subject…The existence of consciousness is in this sense not a problem within physics but a problem for physics. A feature of reality that current physical theory cannot accommodate without either expanding its conceptual framework beyond anything currently available or accepting that the physical description of reality is incomplete in a way that may never be fully addressed within the current paradigm.” Suffice it to say that the explanatory gaps related to consciousness, the emergence of life from non-living molecules, embryo development, and evolution theory are significant enough to assert that biology, neuroscience, and biophysics are incomplete at the scale of everyday human life. Quantum Scale Explanatory Gaps Physics is also incomplete at the smallest scales of the universe. While Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the most precise and experimentally verified theory in the history of science, it offers no explanation for the most well-known force of nature that each of us experiences every moment of our lives – gravity. Physicists have been searching for a quantum theory of gravity since quantum theory was first developed a century ago, yet the hypothetical graviton particle has continued to evade discovery, thus relativity theory remains the only scientific explanation for gravity. Both quantum and relativity theory have been experimentally verified to incredible precision, yet they are fundamentally incompatible with one another. String theory is the closest framework developed thus far as an explanation for gravity at the quantum scale. It proposes the core of reality is made of Planck scale strings that have unique modes of vibration that correlate to the various elementary particles. String theory produced many insights and even new branches of mathematics during its development but appears to be falling out of favor in the theoretical physics community in recent years. String theory is able to embed gravity into quantum physics in 10 dimensions, and its sister theory called Membrane theory (M-theory) does so in 11 dimensions. Speculating the existence of higher dimensions is nothing new in physics as evidenced by the wave functions used in every quantum mechanics calculation being modeled in an infinite dimension Hilbert space. Einstein's theory of relativity moved our view of the universe from 3 dimensions to 4 dimensions, with the 4th dimension being time, meaning we live in a "spacetime" universe. Kaluza-Klein extended relativity theory to 5 dimensions with the 5th dimension being the electromagnetic force, and string theory adds additional dimensions to incorporate the remaining forces of nature (i.e. strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity). String theory elegantly combines all known forces of nature in a quantum theory that works for a nearly infinite number of possible universes, but sadly our universe is not one of them. String and M-theory only work in universes that are finite in size and either shrinking or stable in size (i.e. anti-deSitter universes) yet our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (i.e. deSitter universe). String theory is sometimes invoked as providing scientific support for the multiverse hypothesis discussed earlier, but it would be a multiverse that does contain our actual universe thus does not even qualify as a valid metaphysical assumption because it is inconsistent with known physics. There are many mysteries and paradoxes in quantum physics that illustrate its incompleteness, and the Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment is one that does so directly. This thought experiment is involves 4 observers structured as two nested Wigner's Friend experiments running in parallel, and logically concludes that one of the following three core assumptions in the foundations of quantum physics must be incorrect: Universality : Quantum theory can be applied to everything, including observers and measurement devices. Consistency : Two physicists performing the same calculations on a quantum system will agree on the resulting statistical predictions of the system. Single Outcomes : Two physicists observing the same measurement of a quantum system will agree on the result. Physicists agree on the implications of this thought experiment but disagree which of the 3 assumptions is likely to be wrong. This puts QFT on the same shaky scaffolding that the LCDM cosmological model discussed earlier finds itself, both are incomplete and sit on invalidated foundational assumptions. Despite being incomplete and resting on an invalidated assumption, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has made the most precise predictions in the history of science by far, with one prediction validated via experiment up to 12 significant digits. The prediction that achieves this trillion-to-one difference between theory and experiment is the value of the Electron Anomalous Magnetic Moment, a dimensionless ratio of 5 of the 26+ constants of nature discussed earlier. QFT is strikingly accurate in some of its predictions and strikingly inaccurate in others such as theoretical vacuum energy versus experimental measurement discussed earlier, the "Vacuum Catastrophe." QFT holds the all-time records for the most accurate and inaccurate predictions in the history of science. It clearly does an amazing job at describing certain aspects of the smallest scale of the universe while being unable to explain others. The evidence is clear that physics is also incomplete at the smallest scale of the universe. Conclusion The incompleteness of physics at all scales leads to a number of causation issues and explanatory gaps in our scientific theories. Logician, mathematician, and philosopher Kurt Gödel developed two “Incompleteness Theorems” in 1931 which together prove that no purely “rules-based mathematical system” can provide a complete explanation of the system it was developed to describe. Since physics is a “rules-based mathematical system” Gödel's theorems seem to imply that physics will remain incomplete unless and until it is expanded to include a "non-rules-based" and/or a "non-mathematical" aspect in its formalisms. While the direct applicability of Gödel's theorems to physics remains a matter of philosophical debate, the broader point stands: the persistent incompleteness of physics at every scale — from quantum gravity to the hard problem of consciousness to missing matter & energy at cosmological scales — suggests that the purely quantitative mathematical formalisms of physics may be insufficient to ever fully describe reality. This argues for taking a pragmatic approach when interpreting what scientific theory and evidence may be telling us about the fundamental nature of reality, which will be the subject of my next paper. [1] Emmons-Bell M, Durant F, Tung A, Pietak A, Miller K, Kane A, Martyniuk CJ, Davidian D, Morokuma J, Levin M. Regenerative Adaptation to Electrochemical Perturbation in Planaria: A Molecular Analysis of Physiological Plasticity. iScience. 2019 Dec 20; 22:147-165. Return to Theory Page Susskind

Discover the groundbreaking cellular intelligence book by Dr. Jon Lieff. Learn how cellular communication impacts health and disease. The Secret Language of Cells by Dr. Jon Lieff, M.D. 4.5 Stars Buy Right now, both your inner and outer worlds are abuzz with chatter among living cells of every possible kind—from those in your body and brain to those in the environment around you. From electrical alerts to chemical codes, the greatest secret of modern biology, hiding in plain sight, is that all of life’s activity boils down to one thing: communication. In The Secret Language of Cells, physician and neuroscientist Jon Lieff lets us listen in on these conversations and reveals their significance for everything from mental health to cancer. He explains the surprising science of how very different cells—bacteria and brain cells, blood cells and viruses—all speak the same language. This overarching principle has been long overlooked because scientific journals use impenetrable jargon that is difficult to understand across disciplines, much less by the general public. Dr. Lieff presents a fascinating and accessible look into cellular communication science—a groundbreaking and comprehensive exploration of this biological phenomenon. During infections, immune T cells tell brain cells that we should “feel sick” and lie down. Cancer cells warn their community about immune and microbe attacks. Gut cells talk with microbes to determine which are friends and which are enemies, and microbes talk with each other and with much more complicated human cells in ways that determine which medicines work and which will fail. With applications for immunity, chronic pain, weight loss, depression, cancer treatment, and virtually every aspect of health and biology, the scientific findings about cellular communication revealed in this book are revolutionizing our understanding not just of disease, but of life itself. The Secret Language of Cells is required reading for anyone interested in following the conversation. Your cells are talking about you. Praise for The Secret Language of Cells “The Secret Language of Cells takes us on an exciting journey into a world where we can visualize elaborate conversations among immune cells, brain cells, gut cells, bacteria, and even viruses. Dr. Lieff gives a wealth of examples for his thesis that this cellular signaling is the basis of life. It is a must read for anyone seeking to understand modern biology and advanced medical science. It is equally important for those of us who wonder, as I do, how this ubiquitous information transfer in the form of cellular conversations might be related to the emergence of intelligence and consciousness.” —Ray Kurzweil, inventor, author, and futurist “The Secret Language of Cells explains the complex ways that cells in the body communicate and presents a new paradigm for understanding health and disease. It also suggests new possibilities for treatment and for promoting healing. I’m pleased that my former Harvard colleague, Jon Lieff, has written this important book.” —Andrew Weil, MD, director of the Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine, professor at University of Arizona College of Medicine, and author “Through a brilliant synthesis of cellular biology, microbiology, immunology and neuroscience, The Secret Language of Cells offers a lucid explanation of the marvelous intricacies of cellular life. The result is a masterful exploration of the profound implications of cellular intelligence for understanding pathophysiology, human health and even our origins.” —William B. Miller, Jr., MD, physician, biologist, author of The Microcosm Within: Evolution and Extinction in the Hologenome, and internationally recognized expert on Cognition-Based Evolution “Jon Lieff’s description of cellular communication is insightful, provocative, illuminating, and engaging and provides deep and novel observations into the remarkable symphony of how life happens. Mimicking the cellular world he describes, Dr. Lieff is the great communicator and muse of living things. An inspiring and informative read.” —Ted Kaptchuk, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School “This journey into the dynamic realm of cellular conversations is a tour-de-force – fascinating, vital, and especially timely for understanding emerging viruses. As we learn about intelligence in smaller and smaller animals, it’s not surprising that the tiniest creatures – microbes and even viruses – exhibit elaborate communication and complex decision making. Read The Secret Language of Cells! “ —Marc Bekoff, PhD, professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder and author of Canine Confidential: Why Dogs Do What They Do “As a storyteller, my imagination is sparked by the insights Dr. Lieff brings to our innermost world and the mysteries at the edge of our understanding. The Secret Language of Cells reveals how the micro world reflects the macro, alive with heroes and villains, shapeshifters and tricksters, vigilant guards and gullible bystanders, helpers that commit suicide for the common good and warriors that seize the day or collapse from exhaustion. Lieff’s fascinating exploration inspires awe for the astonishing dialogues and clarion calls at the heart of the intelligence within.” —Antonia Felix, EdD, MFA, New York Times bestselling author “Calling all physicians, microbiologists, medical students and fellow science enthusiasts- you’re going to love The Secret Language of Cells! This book reveals fascinating ongoing conversations between cells, bacteria and viral particles that provide the basis for understanding growth, development, healthy biology and pathology. Perhaps more importantly, they provide the blueprint for novel interventions, treatments and cures for ailments ranging from chronic inflammatory diseases, to cancers and even viral infections. The COVID19 Pandemic has focused the world’s lens on the world of microbes like never before. Read this book and join the conversation.” —Jill Grimes, MD, family physician, speaker, author, and educator About The Author Dr. Jon Lieff is a neuropsychiatrist with a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from Yale University and a Doctorate in Medicine from Harvard Medical School. Known as an innovator in several medical fields, he pioneered the creation of integrated treatment units that focus on complex patients with combined medical, psychiatric, and neurological problems. He built some of the first geriatric medical/psychiatry hospital units, and the largest geriatric treatment network in New England, which he directed for twenty-five years. Furthermore, he is an expert and innovator in developing specialized, innovative treatment programs for brain-injured patients. A nationally recognized expert in the field of geriatric psychiatry, Dr. Lieff is a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. While he was president of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP), he helped found the major journal in that field—the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry—and was a consulting editor of that publication for ten years. He helped found the Geriatric Psychiatry Committee and the High Technology Committee for the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society. He has been a member of several American Psychiatric Association committees and chaired their Committee on Telemedicine. For many years, in addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lieff has been researching the question of where mind can be found in nature. At first, his inquiry related to neuroscience and the interactions of psychiatric, neurological, and medical conditions. He then expanded his study to include intelligence in a wide range of animals, and eventually individual cells, microbes, and viruses. In order to share the results of his extensive research, Dr. Lieff developed this website, Searching for the Mind, where he provided weekly reviews of the latest research in neuroscience, molecular biology, microbiology, immunology, cancer, and related fields. This blog generated a large following in the scientific community, as well as among general readers. Many of his thousands of followers are physicians, scientists, professors, authors, and spiritualists; some of whom are editors of major journals. Because of Dr. Lieff’s ability to make complex scientific information easy to understand, he has been sought after for guest blogs on notable scientific websites and interviews on major national media sites and in print media. He has been interviewed on national and local radio and television programs, including 20/20, and has been quoted in Newsweek and People magazine. Dr. Lieff has written and edited books on geriatric psychiatry and wrote two of the first books on high technology in psychiatry for the American Psychiatric Press, Inc. He has published more than twenty professional articles and has lectured widely over the years on subjects such as neuropsychiatry, neuroscience, psychopharmacology, dementia, depression, and high technology in medicine. While on a three-year hiatus from writing new blog posts, Dr. Lieff wrote his latest book, The Secret Language of Cells, which synthesizes his twelve years of intensive analysis of the scientific literature in a manner that makes it clear and understandable for general science readers and scientific experts. Now that the book is completed, he has resumed writing new blog posts about cellular biology, neuroscience, and microbiology, with special emphasis on how conversations among cells determine all aspects of biology. Contact * Name * Email * Message Submit

QMT is considered an ontologically agnostic theory that supports a panpsychist view of matter from quantum to cosmological scales. What is Fundamental? "Ontology" is the philosophical study of being, existence, and reality. It is the study of "what exists at the most fundamental level of our universe?" It seeks to categorize the basic entities, structures, and relationships that make up the world. This discussion will explore what science appears to be telling us about the possible ontology of mind and matter. Is Mind as Fundamental as Matter? René Descartes’ famous 1637 quote "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) is incredibly concise and powerful in that it captures the essence of the argument that our minds are in fact the only thing that any of us can possibly know with 100% confidence exists in the universe. Literally everything that our minds perceive to exist in the external world is based on information captured by our sensory systems, converted into electrochemical signals, transmitted via synapses from our sensory systems to our brains, and converted by neurons in our brains into the contents of conscious experiences that our brains present to our minds. That our minds exist is the only fundamental fact about the universe that cannot be disputed. Everything that appears to exist in the external world is literally based on assumptions, interpretations, and predictions made by our brains. A quick detour into the phenomenon of color helps to illustrate this point. Many readers may be surprised to learn that literally nothing in the universe has any color whatsoever. Colors literally disappear from objects when zooming in to look at them under a microscope. Color is a “pigment” of our imagination (pun intended), a property that our brains assign to objects with specific frequencies of reflected light to help differentiate objects to be experienced by our minds. This can be illustrated by the 2015 viral social media sensation “The Dress” which some people see as blue and black, while others see as white and gold (left image below). Credit: Roman Originals dress Stacked block illusion Color is not an intrinsic property of the dress nor of the pixels in the image - it is assigned by each person’s brain when creating our mind’s visual experience of the dress. There are many theories as to why people view the dress colors differently, but the bottom line is the colors of the dress literally appear differently to different people. Another example is the stacked block illusion shown in the right side of the above figure. Your brain assigns the top block a dark gray color and the bottom block a white color. Now place your finger horizontally between blocks to cover the shadowy and brightly lit areas between the blocks and you will see the blocks are now the same color. Remove your finger and your visual experience returns to the blocks being different colors. Your brain is using its extensive experience comprehending light and shadows to build different interpretations of the blocks with and without your finger blocking the center. Your brain always makes its best guess as to the features and spatial orientations of objects, adding colors to objects to enhance your experience of angles, light, shadows, etc. This short detour into color was intended to strengthen the argument that we experience the external world indirectly, filtered through a myriad of electrochemical signals and neuronal processes in our sensory systems and brains, with only a tiny fraction of our brain activity ever reaching the level of our conscious awareness. Our brains gather information about the external world via our sensory systems, analyze the information to identify threats and opportunities that affect our ability to survive, and present the information most relevant to our survival for our minds to experience. Brains can best be understood as organs developed to comprehend and navigate the external world to ensure continued survival of complex multicellular organisms. Brains do not create completely accurate representations of the external world as it truly exists, they create representations that enhance our odds of survival by adding colors, textures, dimensional perspectives, and using multi-sensory integration and memory to make an educated guess as to what we are experiencing at any given moment. The implication of this is that we should have less confidence in what we indirectly experience about the external world than what we directly experience as the internal world of our mind. Everything we know about matter and energy, from elementary particles to galaxies, is based on indirect evidence gathered by scientific instruments, converted into data that is analyzed by computers, and presented to our visual sensory system as letters, numbers, and images on computer screens and/or paper printouts (a 1st stage of information processing). This information is received by the 250 million retinal neurons in our eyes as electromagnetic waves which are converted and encoded into 250 million electrochemical signals that are transmitted to our brains via synapses (a 2nd stage of information processing). Our brains receive the 250 million electrochemical signals, decode them, combine them, analyze them, recognize them (as letters, numbers, and images), interpret what the information may imply, and selectively present the results to our conscious minds (a 3rd stage of information processing). Our knowledge of elementary particles is based entirely on information that was detected, processed, and converted into different forms via three sequential processing systems. Since we perceive objects in the external world as having intrinsic colors which they do not in fact have, we should be skeptical of whether subatomic particles have the intrinsic properties that the trio of sequential processing systems suggest they have. Are We Advocating Panpsychism? Panpsychism basically argues that we should treat the only thing that we directly experience and have 100% confidence exists – our minds – should be considered an aspect of the universe on par with the elementary particles that we only indirectly experience and have less confidence exist with the intrinsic properties that science tells us they have. That abstract information gathered, filtered, and interpreted sequentially by 3 discrete processing systems is considered to be more fundamental than mind is a metaphysical "assumption" that is deeply embedded within modern science and philosophy that should be viewed with skepticism. Jon and I have followed scientific research related to the human mind for decades, and the evidence discussed on this website suggests that mind does not require a brain since it appears to exist in plants, cells, viruses, and molecules. Mind is embedded in matter at least down to the molecular scale. The evidence and arguments get murkier as we move down to the quantum scale in subsequent discussions, but we believe the QMT hypothesis that is being articulated in stages holds together. Couple this with the fact that the forces of nature forge the "building blocks of matter" into more complex forms from quantum to cosmological scales, and the p anpsychism premise of "building blocks of mind" suddenly starts to make a lot of sense. Materialism faces the hard problem of consciousness, dualism faces the mind-body problem, and idealism faces the hard problem of matter. Panpsychism does not face a similarly daunting philosophical problems if one accepts our solution to the combination problem. Panpsychism is also consistent with the evidence gathered across scientific disciplines and fits nicely within existing scientific theories. There is a principle called Ockham’s Razor that is often used in both scientific and philosophical arguments. Fourteenth century philosopher William of Ockham asserted that when there are multiple competing hypotheses to explain a phenomenon, the hypothesis that explains more of the evidence and/or requires the fewest assumptions is more likely too be the correct one. Panpsychism should be viewed as the Ockham's Razor hypothesis for mind from the quantum scale to the human scale. Returning to the topic of ontology, it is worth pointing out that the version of panpsychism discussed on this website cannot be considered an ontology because it makes no claims about the intrinsic nature of what exists at the most fundamental scale of the universe, which according to science is the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum was originally assumed to be empty space below the Planck scale where absolutely nothing could exist, a vacuum, a void. That began to change over time and modern science now describes the quantum vacuum as a highly energetic substrate that is seething with quantum fluctuations below the Planck scale, the scale below which quantum theory breaks down. These quantum fluctuations may or may not be physically real as they are treated in quantum mechanics as “virtual particles” that are constantly popping into and out of existence in every Planck volume of our physical universe, regardless of whether particles exist in any given Planck volume. When performing quantum mechanics calculations, physicists leverage virtual particles to facilitate all forms of quantum scale matter and energy interactions, thus quantum vacuum fluctuations can be viewed as powering all matter and energy in our universe. Physicists then “renormalize” (remove) vacuum effects from their equations before solving them because the vacuum creates infinities that make quantum wave equations impossible to solve. The existence of the quantum vacuum as speculated in quantum field theory suggests that any ontological commentary on the fundamental constituents of matter, energy, and/or mind must ground its assertions in the evidence gathered about the quantum vacuum, the most fundamental aspect of reality known to science. Materialism makes the ontological claim that the core of reality consists of a physical substance(s) that exclusively interact according to scientific laws and principles, and that mind is a derivative of matter that appears at some higher scale. Idealism makes the opposite ontological claim, that the core of reality consists of mental phenomena, and that matter is derivative of mind at some higher scale. Dualism makes the ontological claim that the core of reality consists of both matter and mind. The ontological claims of these metaphysical positions have progressively moved to deeper levels of matter as science discovered cells, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, elementary particles, quantum fields, and most recently quantum vacuum fluctuations. Materialism assumes quantum fluctuations are a physical substance, idealism assumes they are mental phenomena, and dualism assumes they are both. The proposed solutions to the combination problem considered the possibility that mind could be an undiscovered property of matter or an undiscovered quantum scale particle, making no claims about the intrinsic nature of the quantum vacuum nor quantum fluctuations, thus should be viewed as ontologically agnostic. By sticking as close as possible to existing scientific theory and simply offering different interpretations of the body of scientific evidence, QMT remains consistent with all of the major ontologies behind the various metaphysical positions: Materialism/Physicalism: Quantum fields cannot realistically be considered “material” entities, but they can be considered “physical” entities as described by quantum physics, which has led materialism to also being referred to as physicalism. The QMT hypothesis that mind is an undiscovered property or an undiscovered elementary particle is completely consistent with modern physicalism. Idealism: The discussion left open the possibility that mind is more fundamental than matter below the Planck scale, where a universal mind could potentially exist in the quantum vacuum given its ethereal and energetic properties. Dualism: Thought experiment #1 treated mind as a property, consistent with property dualism. Thought experiment #2 treated mind as an elementary particle, consistent with substance dualism. Dual aspect monism : The quantum vacuum can be considered the monist source of both the mind and matter components of elementary particles. So What is Fundamental? At some point in the not-too-distant future physicists should find ways to probe the quantum vacuum and learn more about this energetic substrate. Theoretical physicists are already developing theories for what may lie below the Planck scale, which will be discussed in a future section that is under development. What is clear for now is that the current placeholder for what can be considered fundamental, for what can be considered an ontological primitive, are quantum fluctuations. Return to Theory Page