Cumulating evidence suggests that anomalous correlations occur between mental (conscious and non-conscious) states and apparently unrelated physical or mental phenomena at a distance in space and time. In spite of the fact that the evidence is very strong, these correlations are difficult to replicate. Several examples are given of ‘failures’ to empirically replicate1 original anomalies. It is speculated that this failure to replicate, rather than indicating that the original findings are due to statistical flukes or errors, suggests that when consciousness interacts with matter, an underlying reality arises. This reality is somewhere in between the purely objective shareable reality and the purely subjective reality of one’s individual consciousness. Efforts to ‘push’ anomalous phenomena observed in this intermediate reality into the objective one apparently destroy the phenomena. Possible explanations within a physical and within a system theoretical model are discussed. The physical model is based upon an analysis of the role of consciousness in the so-called ‘Measurement Problem’ in Quantum Physics. Based upon these discussions a new systematic experimental approach for the study of anomalous phenomena is suggested.
Cumulating evidence suggests that anomalous correlations occur between mental (conscious and non-conscious) states and apparently unrelated physical or mental phenomena at a distance in space and time. In spite of the fact that the evidence is very strong, these correlations are difficult to replicate. Several examples are given of ‘failures’ to empirically replicate1 original anomalies. It is speculated that this failure to replicate, rather than indicating that the original findings are due to statistical flukes or errors, suggests that when consciousness interacts with matter, an underlying reality arises. This reality is somewhere in between the purely objective shareable reality and the purely subjective reality of one’s individual consciousness. Efforts to ‘push’ anomalous phenomena observed in this intermediate reality into the objective one apparently destroy the phenomena. Possible explanations within a physical and within a system theoretical model are discussed. The physical model is based upon an analysis of the role of consciousness in the so-called ‘Measurement Problem’ in Quantum Physics. Based upon these discussions a new systematic experimental approach for the study of anomalous phenomena is suggested.
Experiments with remote perception and Random Event Generators (REG) performed over the last decades show small but significant anomalous effects. Since these effects seem to be independent of spatial and temporal distance, they appear to be in disagreement with the standard scientific worldview. A very simple explanation of quantum mechanics is presented, rejecting all unjustified claims about the world. A view of mind in agreement with cognitive neuroscience is introduced. It is argued that mind and consciousness are emergent properties of the brain and are understandable without any nonphysical assumptions. A plausible explanation of the results of anomalous experiments, based on the concept of synchronicity, introduced by C.G. Jung and advocated by W. Pauli, is offered. A proof is given that strong correlations should exist between any systems that once interacted. Synchronicity events between parts of the brain and physical objects may be sufficient to explain the results of anomalous experiments. Standard physics is sufficient to understand these phenomena. Motto: It would be most satisfactory if physics and psyche could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.
Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. The so-called “physical interaction” (aka objective interaction) among any number of elementary particles is consistent with the so-called “physical law”. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.
Introduction We saw in Part I that in addition to explaining consciousness there is another hard problem for the modern scientific worldview – understanding what quantum physics is telling us about reality. And if anything this one is harder. In philosophy of mind there is at least consensus enough for an orthodox position to exist (materialism), and a widespread expectation that it will be vindicated by future neuroscience. By contrast, in philosophy of physics all sides understand that quantum theory is compatible with a variety of metaphysical interpretations, and have little hope that new empirical discoveries will settle the matter. But both problems are “hard” in the sense that, despite tremendous intellectual effort over many decades, no clear progress has been made toward solving them. The basic idea of quantum consciousness theory is that bringing the two problems into contact may be the key to solving both (though I will be addressing only the mind–body problem in what follows). That this could be a novel idea attests to the fact that their philosophical discussions have evolved quite separately. While philosophers of physics have long been interested in the role of consciousness in the measurement process, they have engaged little with the mind–body problem per se; and philosophers of mind have been almost unanimous in dismissing the suggestion that consciousness has anything interesting to do with quantum physics. Social scientists might echo such skepticism, wondering how adding the problem of interpreting quantum theory to the problem of consciousness will help them . Besides piling up jargon and arcane debates, in moving to the sub-atomic level we are now even farther removed from the human world, and seemingly poised to engage in the most vulgar reductionism. Yet, naïvely one might expect the two problems to be related, for two reasons. The first is the intriguing analogies mentioned in Chapter 1 between the mental and quantum domains.
This note was written by a theoretical physicist currently working on physical aspects of consciousness, mind-matter relationships, and mind-body interactions. My purpose here is to inform the readers of this journal, in not too technical terms, of some recent ideas relating quantum mechanics, gravitation, and psychological phenomena. Attempts to relate the nature of consciousness to quantum mechanics have been known almost from the be+g of quantum mechanics. For an extended discussion and earlier references see, e.g., Stapp (1982). The common thread of the majority of the suggested hypotheses linking consciousness to a quantum level of description is a drawing of a between the spontaneous localization of mental patterns and (spontaneous or induced) reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. The latter essentially means that quantum systems are inherently described in probabilistic terms and any external observation reduces the manyfold of all potential possibilia to a single given realization. Interpretation of this process is one of the most difficult and controversial topics of quantum mechanics since in quantum mechanics it is thus far essentially impossible to demarcate unambiguously the observer from the quantum system itself. Despite that gravitational effects are usually deemed to be too weak at atomic level, a few authors recently discussed gravity as an inherent route used by nature to achieve an automatic spontaneous reduction of the wave functions of extended objects. In his recent book, Roger Penrose (1989) looks for the possible connections between consciousness, quantum mechanical reduction and gravitational phenomena. To simplify, the essence of these hypotheses is that subtle gravitational effects at the atomic-molecular level lock the brain into a particular mental state, thereby providing the materialization of the potential (quantum) mental image by the route similar to the reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Isotopic diversity of chemical elements can substantially contribute to this picture, as well as to life processes in general (Berezin, 1988). Since gravity is a mass-sensitive effect, the fact that different stable isotopes of the same element (e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen) have different atomic masses may affect the path of mental processing.
Abstract When I look at the scale of the apparatus I know what it reads. Those absurdly delicate, hopelessly inaccessible, global correlations obviously vanish when they connect up with me. Whether this is because consciousness is beyond the range of phenomena that quantum mechanics is capable of dealing with, or because it has infinitely many degrees of freedom or special super selection rules of its own, I would not presume to guess. But this is a puzzle about consciousness that should not get mixed up with efforts to understand quantum mechanics as a theory of subsystem correlations in the nonconscious world.
Who or What Is Participating in Reality Formation? Beyond Mind, Matter, and Measurement Author: Yeshayahu Ben-Yehudah Affiliation: THE BEN-YEHUDAH INSTITUTE Original Publication Date: June 26, 2026 This interdisciplinary scientific and philosophical research paper examines the fundamental relationship between consciousness, observation, quantum measurement, and the formation of physical reality. Building upon the Ben-Yehudah Field Theory, the research investigates whether consciousness may function as an active participant in probabilistic state selection rather than merely emerging as a secondary product of biological processes. Central to this investigation is the Observer Problem in modern physics. Although quantum mechanics provides highly accurate mathematical descriptions of probabilistic physical systems, significant interpretive questions remain concerning measurement, observation, and the transition from quantum possibilities to definite observable outcomes. The research critically examines conventional frameworks of mind, matter, and measurement, questioning whether these approaches adequately explain the nature of the observer. It distinguishes physical measurement from conscious awareness and explores the possibility that the true observer is neither the biological brain, cognitive activity, nor the egoic self, but a deeper observing principle identified as the Subject or Witness. Within the proposed framework, consciousness is examined as a potentially fundamental aspect of existence rather than exclusively as an emergent property of matter. The brain and cognitive systems are considered possible biological interfaces or transducers through which consciousness participates in physical experience. The paper introduces a theoretical participatory sequence describing the proposed relationship between quantum possibility, observation, and manifested reality: Potential Field → Probabilistic States → Observation → State Selection → Manifest Reality This model proposes that reality formation may arise through interactions between consciousness and probabilistic physical systems rather than through purely material or purely subjective processes. The research further examines Cognitive Coherence, attentional stability, and observer alignment as proposed factors influencing the interaction between consciousness and probabilistic states. Within the Ben-Yehudah Field Theory, greater cognitive coherence is hypothesized to correspond with increased efficiency in conscious participation, although these relationships remain theoretical. Drawing upon the contributions of Niels Bohr, John Archibald Wheeler, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm, and contemporary consciousness researchers, the paper integrates quantum foundations, philosophy of mind, ontology, and consciousness studies to reconsider the relationship between the observer and observed reality. The investigation also explores the philosophical implications of distinguishing the experiencing self from the observing witness, suggesting that the nature of consciousness may require examination beyond thought, perception, memory, and individual identity. The proposed participatory model represents a theoretical and philosophical inquiry rather than an experimentally established mechanism of quantum state selection. Its central propositions require further empirical investigation and independent scientific evaluation. By examining the possible relationship between the Observer Problem and the fundamental nature of consciousness, this research advances a broader interdisciplinary inquiry into the architecture of reality and the role of conscious awareness within physical existence. Central Research Question: Who or what is participating in reality formation?