A discussion of the incompleteness of physics at every scale of the universe, leading to a pragmatic quantum framework to support the Fundamental Mind Interpretation (FMI) Resolving Quantum Paradoxes with Energy Exchange and Precise Definitions (Preliminary Draft) Michael Rowen August 5, 2026 Introduction Modern physics rests on two foundational theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, which together describe our physical universe from the subatomic to the cosmological scale with extraordinary empirical precision, yet these theories remain mutually incompatible and jointly incomplete. Quantum mechanics in particular harbors a series of foundational ambiguities at its core as its formalism fails to provide: A physical account of what quantum particles are between measurements. Definitions for what constModern physics rests on two foundational theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, which together describe our physical universe from the subatomic to the cosmological scale with extraordinary empirical precision, yet these theories remain mutually incompatible and jointly incomplete. Quantum mechanics in particular harbors a series of foundational ambiguities at its core as its formalism fails to provide:itutes a measurement, a measurement device, an observation, and an observer. A physical mechanism to explain how measurement produces definite outcomes from the indefinite wave states the formalism describes. Rules to define the proper scale and scope of a quantum system prior to performing quantum mechanical calculations. Whether/where the boundary exists between the quantum and classical worlds. These ambiguities in standard quantum theory combined with an ad hoc “collapse postulate” that lies outside its formalism leads to a myriad of paradoxes precisely because many of its terms and rules remain undefined. The Wave Energy Exchange (WEX) Principle removes ambiguities by offering precise definitions for undefined terms, which combines with a wave packet realism view resolves numerous paradoxes. WEX proposes an ontology in which elementary particles are physically real, spatially extended energy patterns that propagate through 4D spacetime and exist independent of whether they are being measured or observed, while particles are treated as the momentary signatures of quantized energy-exchange events between wave packets. Given the possibility that spacetime is emergent as opposed to fundamental, it is important to note that WEX takes no position on whether wave packets are fully contained within spacetime or possess structure that extends beyond it, it only asserts that wave packets are physically real objects that exist in and propagate through spacetime, exchanging energy at definite locations in spacetime. In other words, the WEX ontology embraces the intrinsic wave nature of matter as what is physically real and fundamental while the particle nature of matter is simply evidence that an energy exchange event has occurred. Quantum theory is treated as a set of tools and rules for modeling the behavior of these physically real energy patterns. With this context established, let's explore the quantum scale starting with quantum physics' central mathematical tool, quantum wave functions. Quantum Wave Functions At the core of quantum theory lie wave equations, mathematical formulas that model the behavior of quantum systems over time. The Schrödinger equation is the primary one used in quantum mechanics but there are other variations that model quantum systems moving at or near the speed of light (e.g. Klein-Gordon, Dirac, and Weyl Equations). Quantum wave functions are specific solutions to wave equations that describe the state and information content of elementary particles, which can be mathematically combined to describe more complex multi-particle quantum systems. Wave functions are complex vectors defined in infinite dimension Hilbert space. WEX views these infinite dimensions not as physically real dimensions, but rather as a mathematical abstraction used to model the infinite degrees of freedom of possible properties that particles may have. Wave functions require “normalization” of probabilities to ensure they sum to 100%, and some require more involved “renormalization” procedures to remove infinities that may arise in certain Quantum Field Theory (QFT) calculations. Given the abstract nature of wave functions as they are defined, combined with the complex manipulations required to do calculations in quantum mechanics, wave functions are best understood not as real objects that exist in nature, but as abstract mathematical representations of physically real energy patterns that exist in nature. The Intrinsic Wave Nature of Matter Standard quantum physics treats elementary particles as having definite properties when they are being measured and lacking definite properties when not being measured. Wave functions model the behavior of elementary particles between measurements as existing in superposition of many possible states at many possible locations with many possible properties, a view that requires the infinite dimensions of Hilbert space to describe the range of possible states of a single elementary particle. Wave functions do not describe elementary particles when they are being measured, nor do they describe the definite, localized properties elementary particles exhibit when being measured, rather they model particles as energy waves spread out over a region of space which lack properties such as dimension, position, momentum, and spin. That quantum scale matter sometimes appears as a particle and sometimes as a wave led to the term “Wave-Particle Duality.” Since particles are modeled as spread-out energy waves that only have properties during measurement leads to the WEX principle ontology that the intrinsic nature of matter is wave-like as opposed to particle-like. This brings us to the first two WEX definitions: Wave Packet: The term 'wave packet' is often used to describe elementary particles in their wave-like state, typically modeled mathematically as a superposition of quantum states within Hilbert space representing a localized energy pattern. WEX builds on this definition by adding an explicit commitment regarding what this mathematics describes: the localized energy pattern itself is physically real, spatially extended, propagates through spacetime (though may not be limited to spacetime) and exists whether or not it is being measured or observed. The WEX principle is based on an ontology that assumes wave packets are the fundamental physical objects that exist at the core of reality. Particle Signature: The term 'particle signature' refers to the brief, localized physical manifestation of an energy exchange event, produced when a wave packet transfers a discrete quantum of energy (characteristic of its elementary particle type) to scientific equipment during measurement or observation. This transfer is what scientific equipment detects as a particle, thus represents the particle’s signature which only persists for a few femtoseconds during energy exchange events. WEX explicitly rejects wave-particle duality as only the wave aspect of elementary particles (wave packets) is considered physically real. A particle signature is not considered a persisting object nor a second mode of existence, but simply fleeting evidence that an energy exchange event has occurred. An analogy is to think of a particle signature as similar to a lightning bolt. One could create a wave function that describes the voltage differential between a storm cloud and the earth, modelling the potential energy contained in the storm cloud as spread out over its 3D structure which varies relative to the contours of the earth below. As the cloud drifts over the earth, both its shape and voltage differentials are influenced by molecular and energy dynamics both inside the cloud and in the environment outside of the cloud, and by changes in the contours of the earth below. The cloud’s wave function is thus evolving over time, analogous to quantum wave functions evolving over time. One could view the cloud as containing a superposition of many potential lightning bolts that could strike the earth in many locations at any given moment. At some point a voltage differential threshold is exceeded somewhere in the cloud which causes a lightning bolt to appear for a brief instant, traveling a specific and measurable path through space while transferring a specific and measurable amount of energy between the earth and cloud. The lightning bolt quickly disappears, and a new wave function must be created to model the updated voltage differentials between the cloud and earth below. Wave packets are spread out over a region of space (like storm clouds), producing particle signatures (or lightning bolts) with measurable classical properties for brief instants during energy transfer. The WEX interpretation rejects the idea that elementary particles can physically exist in superposition of being in multiple places at the same time because the WEX ontology is that the intrinsic nature of matter is physically real wave packets spread out over a region of space when not being measured. Under WEX, superposition becomes an antiquated and misleading term left over from the classical physics era where particles were viewed as tiny 3D objects that have definite properties and permanent existence. Embracing the intrinsic wave nature of matter means accepting that quantum scale matter can transfer energy from any point within the region of space its wave packet is spread over, just like a lightning bolt can transfer energy from any point in the region of space the cloud is spread over. Quantum wave functions thus are mathematical models to predict where wave packet energy exchange events might occur, with the Born rule describing the probability distribution for energy exchange events occurring at specific points in spacetime. Wave Function Collapse In standard quantum physics it is the act of measurement or observation of a quantum system that physicists view as “collapsing the wave function” of the system, causing one of the many statistical possibilities to manifest into a single definite classical result. Since this collapse of wave functions is not embedded within the wave equations of quantum formalisms, it is included as a separate “Collapse Postulate” outside of quantum theory as a non-physical discontinuity to bridge the gap between the quantum and classical worlds. WEX interprets the localized detection event associated with measurement as evidence that a physical energy-exchange event has occurred, replacing the textbook notion of collapse with a physical mechanism. Wave function collapse can thus be viewed as removing the uncertainty in a quantum system due to an energy exchange event. The uncertain state of the quantum system is eliminated by measurement, whereby certain properties of the system are precisely discovered at a specific point in spacetime where a particle signature appears, signifying that an energy exchange event has occurred. After measurement, wave functions “collapse in their usefulness” in describing the new current state of the quantum system because the energy extracted from the system renders the prior wave function moot. While WEX gives wave function collapse a physical identity, the interpretation acknowledges that the mechanism for selecting the specific site and moment of each energy exchange event remains an open question in quantum foundations. Quantum Entanglement Einstein famously questioned both the validity and completeness of quantum theory his entire life. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a landmark paper in 1935 that they believed would demonstrate quantum theory to be incomplete. The paper made a complex argument to show that if quantum theory is correct, then it is possible for two elementary particles to violate the principle of local causality embedded within all classical scientific theories, originally called the EPR paradox which became known as quantum entanglement over time. In 1964 physicist John Bell developed an inequality theorem that provided a way to experimentally test the paradox, and in 1982 Alain Aspect and colleagues reported results that violated Bell’s inequality, establishing quantum entanglement as a real phenomenon. Einstein assumed this strange behavior of quantum scale matter must be explained by local hidden variables, an assumption that Bell’s theorem and the experiments that followed ruled out. The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for this body of work. Imagine a star exploding in a galaxy one billion light years from earth. The explosion causes photons to be emitted in all directions, with many pairs of "entangled" photons emitted that travel in the exact opposite directions from the exploding star. Consider one pair of these entangled photons, photon A and photon B, which form entangled wave packet AB which contains two photon quanta of energy. Now imagine photon A hits the retina in one of your eyes after traveling across the universe for one billion years. When photon A hits your retina, the entangled connection is severed and its entangled partner (now referred to as photon B' in the illustration below) instantly adopts complementary properties to photon A. An alien quantum physicist on a distant planet that subsequently measures photon B’ will discover the complementary properties established when wave packet AB was split in half by the energy exchange with your retina. WEX views entanglement as an aspect of the intrinsic wave nature of matter. The wave packets of photon A and photon B were produced as a single unified wave packet AB carrying two photon quanta of energy in a bi-modal configuration, with two modes moving away from one another. When wave packet AB encounters a system that causes it to exchange energy, such as your retina, a quantized particle signature is produced at the point of energy exchange. Wave packet AB loses one photon quantum to your retina, leaving the residual quantum in photon B′. Since photon A no longer exists, the entangled connection is split, and photon B′ is left with properties complementary to photon A's particle signature through universal conservation laws. Conservation laws constrain the allowed correlations between the two modes of the unified structure. Entanglement is best understood by viewing entangled wave packets as unified physically real objects rather than as two separate wave packets that were never causally independent systems. When the unified wave packet exchanges energy at one mode, the properties at the other mode are constrained not because information travels between them, but because the constraint is a structural property of the single object itself. No usable information is transmitted between the modes, consistent with the no-signaling theorem, and no observer at either location can detect anything unusual until the results are later compared. WEX does not claim to restore local causality in the sense ruled out by Bell's theorem; it rejects the premise that the two photons were ever separate locally causal systems to begin with. WEX's claim is that an entangled correlation is a property of a single physical structure rather than a signal passed between two structures, independent of whether that structure is fully resident in spacetime or possesses connectivity not reducible to spacetime separation. WEX takes no position on how this structural connectivity relates to relativistic simultaneity, a question that remains open for every realist account treating measurement outcomes as definite, and one WEX inherits rather than resolves. The Measurement Problem The central mystery in quantum physics revolves around the “Measurement Problem” (aka. “Observation Problem”), which involves explaining how quantum scale matter transitions from a distribution of possible properties pre-measurement to a precise set of classical properties post-measurement. The measurement problem is a direct consequence of a lack of definitions for what constitutes a measurement, a measurement device, and where the boundary lies between the quantum and classical worlds, if such a boundary exists at all. It is the absence of these definitions that leads directly to the paradoxes of quantum physics such as Schrodinger’s Cat, Wigner’s Friend, and the Frauchiger-Renner paradoxes. The WEX principle incorporates precise definitions for these three terms plus three additional terms that remain undefined in standard quantum theory, which when combined with the wave packet and particle signature definitions provided earlier, resolves numerous paradoxes that result from definitional ambiguities. Measurement or Observation: The absorption of a quantum system's characteristic quantum of energy which produces a particle signature at the point of energy exchange. Measurement Device or Observer: Any system that absorbs a quantum of energy from a quantum system and produces a particle signature at the point of contact. Entangling Interaction: Any physical interaction between two wave packets that correlates their subsequent behavior without either wave packet transferring a discrete, characteristic quantum of energy to the other. Consistent with the treatment of entangled photon pairs described previously, the two wave packets are now treated as a unified spatially extended wave packet. Because no discrete quantum of energy is exchanged in forming this correlation, the entangling interaction does not produce a particle signature. The unified wave packet persists until a measurement occurs anywhere within its spatial extent that extracts a quantum of energy, which produces a particle signature at that location while irreversibly producing complementary properties in the remainder of the structure through conservation laws. Absorbing Structure : A macroscopic arrangement of densely packed quantum systems, each individually capable of absorbing a quantum of energy, whose combined density and coupling strength make the aggregate probability of an energy exchange event occurring somewhere within the structure near certain. A photon wave packet reaching a detection screen encounters an Absorbing Structure: its spatially extended amplitude forms Entangling Interactions with many constituent atoms simultaneously, and an energy exchange is essentially guaranteed to occur at one of them, with the Born rule governing the probability of each location. This explains why dense matter reliably produces particle signatures while a wave packet encountering sparse matter — a single atom in its path, or a dilute gas — may continue with no exchange occurring at all. Whether the resulting exchange constitutes a Measurement or an Observation is a separate question, determined by whether the structure's presence establishes when and where the exchange occurs. A detection screen placed in a beam's path is an Absorbing Structure functioning as a measurement device; a scintillator array awaiting cosmic rays is an Absorbing Structure functioning as an observer. An Absorbing Structure determines that an exchange occurs, not which constituent system undergoes it, at what moment, or under which of the two definitions it falls. Quantum System: The wave function for a quantum system should be written from the perspective of a measurement device or observer. If the system has undergone an entangling interaction with another wave packet, the wave function must describe the full spatial extent of the resulting unified wave packet, not merely the original system in isolation, until a measurement occurs anywhere within that unified structure. Furthermore, a wave function cannot contain a measurement device or observer inside the quantum system it describes. No Quantum Boundary: Since the intrinsic nature of matter is wave-like, there is no boundary between the quantum and classical world where quantum dynamics cease to apply. Researchers have demonstrated quantum effects in experiments involving increasingly larger and more complex configurations of matter. Organic molecules with thousands of atoms have demonstrated the intrinsic wave nature of matter applies at the scale of complex molecules. Micro-mechanical resonators made from trillions of atoms have demonstrated collective vibrational states that illustrate the intrinsic wave nature of matter at scales that are now visible with microscopes. Quantum biology has produced evidence of quantum effects operating at the molecular and cellular scale in living organisms, including coherent energy transfer during photosynthesis and in retinal proteins that migratory birds appear to use for magnetic navigation. This evidence suggests that the assumption that quantum effects cannot occur in macroscopic structures, nor in the wet, warm, and electromagnetically noisy environments of biological organisms, is incorrect. Environmental interactions more broadly can also strongly suppress observable macroscopic coherence. Quantum effects are theoretically independent of scale under the WEX principle as a natural consequence of the intrinsic wave nature of matter. As researchers look for quantum effects in ever larger matter structures, the challenge becomes isolating and detecting the energy exchange events occurring between the wave packets that form matter structures against the backdrop of environmental noise. The WEX principle suggests that wave energy exchange events are constantly occurring in all matter structures and at all scales independent of whether they can be detected by scientific instruments. Schrödinger’s Cat and Nested Observer Paradoxes This paradox involves placing a cat in a box with a radioactive atom, Geiger counter, and a vial of poison. The Geiger counter will detect if the atom decays and is set up to break the vial which releases the poison and kills the cat. It is unclear in standard quantum theory whether the cat qualifies as an observer nor whether the cat exists on the quantum or classical side of the undefined boundary between the two. Given the lack of definitions, the paradox emerges when the cat is treated as part of the quantum system with everything else inside the box, resulting in the cat being viewed as existing in a "superposition" of simultaneously alive and dead until the box is opened and the cat’s fate is observed (and hopefully still alive!). Applying the WEX definitions to this paradox leads to the radioactive atom being the only relevant quantum system that needs to be described by a wave function to model the state of the cat. The Geiger counter acts as a measurement device which detects whether the atom has released energy. Neither the Geiger counter, vial, or cat should be included within the wave function. The Geiger counter is excluded because the WEX definition of a quantum system explicitly excludes measurement devices from the system it observes. The vial and cat are excluded because they are not involved in energy exchange. The relevant boundary to define the wave function of the system is the atom alone. WEX treats the cat as always possessing a definite physical state, while the radioactive atom is the quantum system whose decay probability determines the statistics of that state. More complex versions of the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox involving multiple nested measurement devices and observers (e.g. Wigner’s Friend and Frauchiger-Renner paradoxes) are similarly resolved by recognizing the WEX principle explicitly excludes observers inside quantum systems. The Frauchiger-Renner paradox leads to the claim 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. Adopting the WEX definition of a quantum system narrows the scope of the “Universality” definition above by “explicitly excluding” observers and measurement devices rather than “explicitly including” them. This dissolves the Frauchiger-Renner paradox at its source rather than requiring revision to the other core assumptions. Double Slit Experiment The double slit experiment is the most well-known quantum experiment because it directly illustrates the wave nature of matter. A photon wave packet emitted from a light source will spread out over the region of space between the source and a barrier with two slits. The wave packet will pass through both slits then begin spreading out as a bi-modal wave packet emerging from the two slits on the other side of the barrier. As this bi-modal wave packet approaches the screen it will begin to interfere with itself, and when it hits the screen, it transfers its energy to the screen, appearing as a particle signature somewhere on the screen. Successive photon wave packets produce a series of particle signature impacts that are distributed on the screen according to the statistics of a single self-interfering wave packet, resulting in the classic double slit interference pattern on the screen which directly illustrates the wave nature of matter. This description is consistent with the WEX principle as the wave packets travel through both slits in their intrinsic wave state and appear as particle signatures when they transfer a quantum of energy to the screen. The detection screen is an Absorbing Structure as defined above, dense enough that a measurement is essentially certain to occur somewhere on its surface, with the Born rule governing where each photon's particle signature appears. If photon detectors are placed at the slits to detect which slit each photon passes through, the detectors will always find a photon at one of the slits and no interference pattern appears on the screen. This is traditionally seen as illustrating the particle nature of matter which the WEX principle views as evidence that an energy exchange event has occurred. When detectors are used to identify which slit a photon is passing through, the photon wave packet always passes through both slits as a single spatially extended wave, never through one slit alone. The wave packet has some probability of undergoing an energy exchange event at either detector, determined by the amplitude of the wave at each slit. When an energy exchange occurs at one detector, a photon quantum of energy is exchanged between the wave packet and detector, producing a particle signature with a photon quantum of energy. Since the wave packet carried exactly one photon quantum of energy, nothing remains of the wave packet to exchange energy with the detector at the other slit or with the screen. Delayed Choice Double Slit Experiment The delayed choice double slit experiment is a more complex version of the standard double slit experiment. The mystery in this experiment is that a decision made 'after' the photon has already passed through both slits but ‘before’ it reaches the screen, appears to determine which of the two double-slit outcomes results. If no attempt is made to detect which slit the photon passed through, the standard interference pattern appears, exactly as in the ordinary double-slit experiment. If the decision is instead to detect which slit the photon passed through, the interference pattern disappears entirely, exactly as when detectors are placed directly at the slits. The puzzle is how a decision made after the photon's wave has already passed the barrier can seemingly determine, after the fact, which of these two well-established behaviors will be observed. Consider a photon wave packet that has already traveled through both slits and is at the midpoint between the barrier and the screen. Like the entangled photons discussed previously, the photon wave packet remains a unified physical object extended throughout the space it has traversed. When a detector at one of the slits extracts a photon quantum of energy from a part of the wave packet that remains at the slit, the energy exchange causes a particle signature to appear at the detector. This requires the photon's wave packet to have a coherence length comparable to or greater than the distance between the slits and the screen (which is part of the experimental design in real-world delayed-choice experiments) in order for part of the wave packet to still be physically present at the slits when a detection choice is made. The single-photon double-slit case and the two-photon entangled case can be viewed as instances of the same underlying mechanism. In both cases, a measurement occurring anywhere within a spatially extended, non-separable wave structure extracts a quantum of energy at that location while constraining the remainder of the structure through conservation laws. What differs between the two cases is why the structure remains extended and connected prior to measurement. In the delayed-choice case, the extension is a self-coherence phenomenon where the wave packet remains present along the path it has traveled, bounded by the photon's coherence length. In the entangled case, the connection between photon pair AB is not a self-coherence phenomenon but a structural property of the unified state fixed at pair creation and enforced by conservation laws at the moment either mode is measured, consistent with the evidence of entangled correlations surviving over distances far exceeding any realistic photon coherence length. In the double-slit case, as the single photon wave packet advances toward the screen interfering with itself, it is also extended back through both slits as a single coherent bimodal wave packet in space. This allows a detector at either slit to extract a photon quantum of energy, leaving no residual wave energy that can be transferred to the screen or a detector at the other slit. This is structurally similar to entangled photon pair AB as another example of a single coherent bimodal wave packet extended in space. In this scenario, a measurement device can extract a single photon quantum of energy from either mode, splitting the entangled connection, leaving a residual photon quantum of energy at the other mode with complementary properties to the extracted photon. The difference in outcome (no residual energy in the double-slit case but a residual quantum of energy in the entangled case) reflects a difference in the total initial energy of the extended wave packets, not a difference in the underlying principle. The double-slit wave packet carries exactly one photon quantum, so extraction at either slit depletes all its energy. The entangled wave packet AB carries two photon quanta, concentrated in the modes of its bimodal structure. An energy exchange event triggered in either mode will extract a single photon quantum of energy from that mode, the minimum amount that can be extracted from wave packet AB, splitting the entangled connection and leaving a residual single photon quantum of energy in the opposite mode. In both cases the same rule governs the outcome: a single coherent, spatially extended wave packet undergoes local energy exchange that conserves its total quantum content. Standard quantum mechanics treats wave packets passing through a double-slit apparatus and entangled photon pairs as distinct phenomena, whereas WEX unifies them as rooted in the same underlying principle: physically real, spatially extended wave packets traveling coherently through 4D spacetime, with the potential for energy exchange occurring anywhere along its spatial extension. WEX Explains Why Particle Signatures Appear but Not Where They Appear When a wave packet reaches an Absorbing Structure, WEX's definitions describe the situation precisely: the wave packet's spatially extended amplitude forms entangling Interactions with many constituent atoms simultaneously, quantization and energy conservation guarantee that at most one completed measurement can occur per quantum carried, and the Born rule describes the statistical distribution of where that measurement occurs. What no existing quantum formalism supplies is the physical process that converts exactly one of those entangling Interactions into a completed measurement while the others simply never complete. Asking why the particle signature appears at this atom rather than that one is asking for a deterministic answer that quantum physics does not contain, an indeterminism WEX regards as an objective feature of nature that remains unresolved in quantum theory. The Born rule describes the statistics of site selection, and nothing in the standard formalism describes its mechanism. This question has a precise historical pedigree. In 1929, Nevill Mott confronted its original form: a radioactive nucleus emits an alpha particle as a spherically symmetric spreading wave, yet cloud chambers invariably record straight, localized tracks. Mott showed, using only unitary wave mechanics and no collapse postulate, that the joint amplitudes for multiple ionization events strongly suppress any sequence of events inconsistent with a single straight, momentum-conserving trajectory; each ionization focuses the amplitude for subsequent ionizations onto narrower cones around the line already established. Conservation laws and wave mechanics thus explain the structure that any realized outcome must exhibit. But Mott's own calculation leaves the direction of the track undetermined where the probability distribution over straight tracks remains spherically symmetric. Mott concluded only that it is admissible to postpone thinking of particles until they are actually observed. His analysis, later adopted by Joos and Zeh as the first concrete model of quantum decoherence, establishes what unitary wave mechanics can and cannot explain about measurement: it can explain only their consistency, not their selection. Standard quantum optics reflects the same boundary. Glauber's photodetection theory, the universally used formalism for computing photon detection probabilities, is constructed as a probability rule for detection events layered on top of the field's unitary dynamics, not derived from them. The discipline's own foundational detection formalism thus concedes, in its very structure, what WEX asserts as ontology: the mathematical formalism models the behavior of physically real wave packets but does not, on its own, generate the real, discrete detection events that experiments record. Physical mechanisms for the selection step have been proposed and remain under active investigation. Spontaneous collapse models, beginning with Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, add a stochastic localization process to the wave dynamics whose built-in amplification makes collapse negligible for isolated particles but essentially instantaneous for macroscopic aggregates, with minute, potentially testable departures from standard predictions. Penrose's gravitationally induced reduction proposes a physical origin for that collapse rate in the instability of superposed mass distributions. The transactional picture, originated by Cramer and developed relativistically by Kastner, locates the selection in a confirmed emitter-absorber transaction, a physically real, non-unitary completion of one exchange among many incipient possibilities. WEX is compatible with each of these and deliberately remains agnostic among them: WEX's definitions, wave packet ontology, and paradox resolutions stand independent of which mechanism ultimately proves correct. Conclusion The Wave Energy Exchange (WEX) principle proposes a comprehensive and precise set of definitions for the ambiguous terms in standard quantum theory, and a physical mechanism (quantized energy exchange) which together provides a unified physical description of quantum phenomena that avoids paradoxes. WEX leverages standard quantum formalisms and thus requires no new mathematics, relying instead on precise definitions and an ontological claim to support its arguments. WEX resolves the paradoxes that arise from quantum theory's undefined terms while explicitly acknowledging, rather than obscuring, the one open question every non-Everettian interpretation shares: the physical mechanism that selects the site and moment of each individual energy exchange event. WEX asserts that the intrinsic nature of matter is physically real localized patterns of energy that propagate through 4D spacetime, interacting by exchanging quanta of energy at every scale of the universe, and existing independent of whether they are being measured or observed. Relevance of WEX to FMI FMI is based on the assumption that mind is embedded in matter at all scales. Standard quantum theory models quantum scale matter as an ethereal phenomenon existing in a superposition of many states and many places at the same time. Under this view, mind embedded within quantum scale matter would also have to exist in this disembodied superposition of states, a requirement that presented significant challenges to FMI. In order to make a coherent argument for mind existing in quantum scale matter it was necessary to establish an ontology where quantum scale matter was physically real and embodied within a single coherent structure, which led to the WEX ontology and WEX principle. Going a level deeper, standard quantum physics treats elementary particles as excitations in universal quantum fields, suggesting that quantum fields are what exists at the core of reality. Elementary particles are considered to result from the interactions of excitations in multiple quantum fields, which presents a second disembodiment challenge to FMI that will be addressed in a subsequent discussion on quantum field theory. Return to Theory Page Susskind

The Fundamental Mind Interpretation (FMI) of physics uses scientific evidence to build an argument for mind as a fundamental aspect of our universe. The Fundamental Mind Interpretation of Scientific Evidence The Fundamental Mind Interpretation (FMI) provides an alternative way to view scientific evidence and theories by positing mind as a non-random cognitive agency embedded within elementary particles. By replacing the assumption of randomness with cognitive agency at the quantum scale, FMI remains consistent with scientific evidence while resolving several explanatory gaps resulting from multiple randomness assumptions at different scales. This page will evolve as FMI is developed, with the complete interpretation expected to be published in a 2028 joint sequel to our books. Cells Have Minds That Combine Our books discuss research showing that cells can communicate, collaborate, and solve problems - demonstrating cognition and agency which we view as evidence of a cellular scale mind. Our hypothesis is that individual cells electromagnetically combine their minds to form more complex multicellular organism minds. This hypothesis explains numerous anomalies in neuroscience while resolving longstanding mysteries in philosophy of mind. Cellular Scale Mind How Minds Combine Asserting that minds can combine faces the classic "Combination Problem." Two solutions are offered which show that the fundamental forces of nature and universal conservation laws of physics enable mind combination if mind is assumed to be an undiscovered property of quantum scale matter or an undiscovered elementary particle. These solutions form the 1st of 4 foundational pillars that support FMI. Minds Combine via Forces of Nature How Minds Combine Physics is Incomplete The evidence is clear that physics provides an incomplete description of the behaviors of matter and energy at every scale of the universe, leading to explanatory gaps and causation issues in every scientific theory. The broad scope of this incompleteness across all scales of the universe argues for taking a pragmatic approach when interpreting what scientific theories and evidence may be telling us about the intrinsic nature of reality. Physics is Incomplete at All Scales Physics is Incomplete Quantum Framework Many quantum physics mysteries are rooted in the lack of precise definitions that are difficult to define from the current paradigm's "wave-particle duality" perspective. The Wave Energy Exchange (WEX) principle and interpretation offer precise definitions and a physical mechanism - energy exchange - that together resolve quantum mysteries by embracing an "intrinsic wave nature of reality" perspective. WEX is the 2nd pillar of FMI. The Intrinsic Wave Nature of Reality Wave Nature of Reality Random Assumptions Randomness Cannot Explain Complexity An assumption embedded within scientific theories at quantum, molecular, cellular, organism, and cosmic scales is that "random" matter interactions at one scale can explain the emergence of complex structures and behaviors at the next higher scale. But these assumptions do not hold up under scrutiny, thus cannot explain the complexity of matter. Random Delusions Coming Fall 2026 Mind-Matter Mind Can Influence Matter at all Scales The 3rd pillar of FMI involves replacing the assumption of quantum randomness with a non-random cognitive agency as the driver of the behavior of quantum scale matter, quantum scale mind. While clearly more speculative than the WEX pillar, changing this one assumption resolves numerous explanatory gaps created by randomness assumptions at multiple scales while providing a framework for mind-matter interactions at all scales. Mind-Matter Interaction Coming Winter 2026 Molecular Mind Molecules & Viruses Have Minds Molecules and viruses inside cells communicate, collaborate, and exhibit goal-directed behaviors. FMI explains these behaviors as driven by molecular scale minds as opposed to the current hypothesis that random Brownian motion drives molecular behaviors. The subcellular world can best be understood as a complex society of molecules with minds that work together to keep their shared cellular ecosystem alive and functioning properly. Molecular Scale Mind Coming 2027 Evolution Mind as the Driver of Evolutionary Mutations Matter progressively evolved more complex forms from subatomic particles to molecules to cells to complex organisms with brains. At each step along the way matter demonstrates increasingly intelligent behaviors that create explanatory gaps in physics, thermodynamics, biology, and evolution theory. FMI offers an alternative framework where mind drives the evolution of complex matter in its relentless pursuit to survive and comprehend the universe. Mind Driven Evolution Coming 2027 Anchor 1 Quantum Substratum Below the Planck Scale The quantum vacuum grounds the quantum fields of all elementary particles. It is packed very densely with highly energetic quantum fluctuations that facilitate all particle interactions in quantum mechanics, thus can be viewed as grounding, powering, and connecting all matter and energy in the universe. The next frontier of physics is the exploration of the quantum substratum below the Planck Scale. Quantum Substratum Coming 2027 Fundamental Mind Fundamental Mind in Quantum Substratum The 4th and final pillar of FMI is the hypothesis that the quantum substratum grounds, powers, and connects everything in the universe including all mind, matter and energy. The implications of mind possibly existing at the most fundamental scale of reality are far reaching and paint an inspiring picture of the universe and our place within it. Fundamental Mind Coming 2027 The FMI blog contains posts that assume the reader is familiar with the details of the theory on this page. View the FMI Blog Contact Us * Name * Email * Message Submit Subscribe to our Quarterly Newsletter First name* Last name* Email* Subscribe

Searching For Mind explores scientific evidence for mind existing at different scales of matter. This website searches for scientific evidence of mind at all scales of the universe Our Books The creators of this website each wrote a book presenting evidence of cellular scale communication, cognition, and agency that cannot be explained by modern science, which the authors view as evidence that cells have minds. Since early 2024 we have been exploring scientific research looking for evidence of mind in smaller scales of matter including organelles, viruses, molecules, and elementary particles. Our Books Our Blogs Our search for mind at different scales of the universe uncovered evidence for mind at many scales, leading to the hypothesis that mind is may be a fundamental aspect of our universe. Our blogs discuss this evidence from a scientific perspective, absent metaphysical bias, focused on identifying gaps in scientific theories that fit with the possibility of mind operating at different scales. Our Blogs Our Theory Our joint sequel will offer an alternative interpretation of scientific evidence where mind is treated as a fundamental aspect of the universe. The Fundamental Mind Interpretation (FMI) replaces the assumption that elementary particles behave "randomly" with the assumption that they have the "cognitive agency of a mind." This interpretation remains consistent with the scientific evidence at all scales of the universe while resolving mysteries and explanatory gaps across multiple scales. FMI Overview About Us This website is a collaboration between Dr. Jon Lieff and Michael Rowen, two independent researchers searching for evidence of mind in smaller and smaller scales of matter who joined forces in 2024. Subscribe to our Quarterly Newsletter First name* Last name* Email* Subscribe Contact Us * Name * Email * Message Submit

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

Discussion of explanatory gaps in physics & philosophy at all scales of the universe, with a particular focus on the physics & philosophies of mind. There are many unsolved mysteries in science & philosophy from quantum to cosmic scales. This blog explores what science can and cannot tell us about these mysteries, a critical first step in being able to objectively consider the nature of life, mind, and our place in the universe. 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 animals and insect behave as if they have minds that experience their world. Mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and insects all demonstrate communication, problem solving skills, and social behaviors that strongly suggest they have minds that experience their environment and engage with other lifeforms. Consciousness pervades the animal kingdom. 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 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