This dissertation formulates a closed world in which the observer, in whatever capacity, does not stand outside the universe but is intrinsically part of it. Biologically formed or not.This position is often misunderstood in classical science. You observe something while you yourself are part of what you observe. This becomes evident at the quantum level. The debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein revolved around this for decades, and continues to this day. Likewise, there are many discussions about the role of the observer, such as in the Double Slit Experiment. There it becomes clear that the observer perceives something different from the underlying reality. It is well known that it matters whether you observe or not.This dissertation explains clearly that this position of an external observer, present in both of these examples, is impossible to maintain within classical science. It also assumes that everything in the universe, even at the quantum level or smaller, proceeds according to strict rules. No process in the universe can escape them. It may seem that as a human being (or as another biological or non‑biological entity) you possess free will because of your mobility and mind, but even that can be traced back to a universal process that adheres precisely to the same rules from which everything is built. Nothing in the entire universe can escape them. This is reinforced and clarified by the central thought experiment used here: the frozen universe. It reveals that time, change, and free will do not exist in reality but only as experience. Time is a concept from point A to point B within which change occurs. Because of this, we are accustomed to process thinking. In a static universe, this is impossible. It then becomes apparent that things we consider normal—even at the scientific level—manifest themselves in a completely different way. This dissertation on the frozen universe therefore has major consequences. As a result, Einstein’s block universe can no longer be taken as a starting point—something on which many theories are based—and the debate between Bohr and Einstein on determinism and indeterminism becomes largely redundant. The Schrödinger equation and numerous scientific publications are thereby put under pressure, precisely because everything unfolds according to the fixed, universal, continuous process over which one has no influence. As humans or observers, we live in our world while continuously being part of that same process and of how that universal process unfolds. As a human being, you have only the freedom to experience the human world. Therefore, free will and time should be regarded as separate from all universal processes, because these human processes—also applicable to other biological beings—experience a different world than the universal process of which they are part.In short: we live in an illusion of our reality that does not align with the universal processes that have existed as long as the universe itself. This also shows that everything is determined according to the rules that unfold continuously within the one‑direction continuum, and that nothing can be changed about it. It is thus a framework in which reality, perception, and causality converge into one closed, relational whole. In doing so, it forms a conceptual bridge between physics, philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, and epistemology, and provides a foundation for a new, reflexive scientific method. It is also a bridge between classical science—from Newton to contemporary quantum theory.
This dissertation formulates a closed world in which the observer, in whatever capacity, does not stand outside the universe but is intrinsically part of it. Biologically formed or not.This position is often misunderstood in classical science. You observe something while you yourself are part of what you observe. This becomes evident at the quantum level. The debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein revolved around this for decades, and continues to this day. Likewise, there are many discussions about the role of the observer, such as in the Double Slit Experiment. There it becomes clear that the observer perceives something different from the underlying reality. It is well known that it matters whether you observe or not.This dissertation explains clearly that this position of an external observer, present in both of these examples, is impossible to maintain within classical science. It also assumes that everything in the universe, even at the quantum level or smaller, proceeds according to strict rules. No process in the universe can escape them. It may seem that as a human being (or as another biological or non‑biological entity) you possess free will because of your mobility and mind, but even that can be traced back to a universal process that adheres precisely to the same rules from which everything is built. Nothing in the entire universe can escape them. This is reinforced and clarified by the central thought experiment used here: the frozen universe. It reveals that time, change, and free will do not exist in reality but only as experience. Time is a concept from point A to point B within which change occurs. Because of this, we are accustomed to process thinking. In a static universe, this is impossible. It then becomes apparent that things we consider normal—even at the scientific level—manifest themselves in a completely different way. This dissertation on the frozen universe therefore has major consequences. As a result, Einstein’s block universe can no longer be taken as a starting point—something on which many theories are based—and the debate between Bohr and Einstein on determinism and indeterminism becomes largely redundant. The Schrödinger equation and numerous scientific publications are thereby put under pressure, precisely because everything unfolds according to the fixed, universal, continuous process over which one has no influence. As humans or observers, we live in our world while continuously being part of that same process and of how that universal process unfolds. As a human being, you have only the freedom to experience the human world. Therefore, free will and time should be regarded as separate from all universal processes, because these human processes—also applicable to other biological beings—experience a different world than the universal process of which they are part.In short: we live in an illusion of our reality that does not align with the universal processes that have existed as long as the universe itself. This also shows that everything is determined according to the rules that unfold continuously within the one‑direction continuum, and that nothing can be changed about it. It is thus a framework in which reality, perception, and causality converge into one closed, relational whole. In doing so, it forms a conceptual bridge between physics, philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, and epistemology, and provides a foundation for a new, reflexive scientific method. It is also a bridge between classical science—from Newton to contemporary quantum theory.
However, the observations encompassed by classical physics excludes the observer from the physical reality, yet the deep-down understandung of nature --{\it the quantum theory}-- can not avoid the intrusion of observer into the measurement process. Indeed, the quantum physics experiments have knocked the door of a new paradigm: in which science of consciousness is an important axiom. In the present work, it is argued --by taking into account of the views of learned scientists and philosophers-- that modern science is incomplete and lacking something in the basic understanding of nature \cite{r}. Classical physics has failed to explain the dynamics of the microscopic particles, eventhough modern scientific researches are based upon the prejudice posed by classical physics: keeping the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer --human mind. One should not forget that human-being is a part of nature and human mind is an essential component of our observations. Basically, it is the observer --the consciousness-- which makes perception possible. The working of human mind must be included in our scientific theories. In fact, human free will is an illusion and nothing in the entire universe (with life) lies outside the domain of science and determinism.
The genesis of actuality from potentiality, with the apparent role of the observer, is an important and unsolved problem which essentially defines science‟s view of reality in a variety of contexts. Observation then becomes lawful and not emergent. Panentheism is needed to provide a mechanism for order outside of blind efficient causality, in a Universal final causality. Classical physics is over a hundred years out of date, yet scientific models remain mechanistic and deterministic. Deism, a remnant of classical cosmology, is examined and rejected by scientists and philosophers, and certain pre-scientific notions of religion are scorned, putting the matter to rest. Quantum physics, in its basic form, is necessary if there is to be any philosophical or scientific notion of free will and self-determination, as potentiality. Quantum metaphysics is also needed because classical physics is fundamentally limited to localized external relations, lacking the internality and non-locality of relatedness. God, or the equivalent, is necessary to complete the equation. Physicists now tell us that reality is fundamentally mental and is created by observation. Observation is here taken to mean experience, with experience going all the way down to the lowest order of a Universal mentality.
Abstract I think of the development of physics as the growth of relativism. Every increase in relativism is an increase in our understanding of the complexity of the observer, of a number of possible observers, and of the influence of the observer upon the phenomenon. Quantum theory is only the latest stage in this growth of relativism. It is by no means the end of our understanding of the importance of the observer or the experimenter. In fact, I think it’s no longer proper to speak of the observer because that still carries the old implication of someone who observes from outside the phenomenon without changing it. In quantum theory we only have experimenters, people who do things. One of the lessons of relativism is that one should be very careful about assuming the existence of things that in principle cannot be seen. Evidently one of these things is the universe. It’s a physical impossibility, as a matter of principle, for any experimenter to have complete information about the universe. Every experimenter begins by ignoring large parts of the universe, namely, himself or herself. You turn your attention to something by omitting from your attention much more. It is quite possible that the universe will go the way of absolute time or absolute state. I don’t think we have reached the end of this growth in relativism.
“I refute it thus!” Samuel Johnson famously dismissed Bishop George Berkeley's argument for the unreality of matter by kicking a large stone (Boswell, 1823). In the light of modern physics, however, Johnson's simple reasoning evaporates. Apparently solid matter is revealed, on closer inspection, to be almost all empty space, and the particles of which matter is composed are themselves ghostly patterns of quantum energy, mere excitations of invisible quantum fields, or possibly vibrating loops of string living in a ten-dimensional space–time (Greene, 1999). The history of physics is one of successive abstractions from daily experience and common sense, into a counterintuitive realm of mathematical forms and relationships, with a link to the stark sense data of human observation that is long and often tortuous. Yet at the end of the day, science is empirical, and our finest theories must be grounded, somehow, “in reality.” But where is reality? Is it in acts of observation of the world made by human and possibly non-human observers? In records stored in computer or laboratory notebooks? In some objective world “out there”? Or in a more abstract location? The ground of reality When a physicist performs an experiment, he or she interrogates nature and receives a response that, ultimately, is in the form of discrete bits of information (think of “yes” or “no” binary answers to specific questions), the discreteness implied by the underlying quantum nature of the universe (Zeilinger, 2004). Does reality then lie in the string of bits that come back from the set of all observations and experiments – a dry sequence of ones and zeros? Do these observations merely transfer really-existing bits of information from an external world reality to the minds of observers, or are the bits of information created by the very act of observation/experiment? And – the question to which this entire discussion is directed – are bits of “classical” information the only sort of information that count in the reality game, or does an altogether different form of information underpin reality? In short, where is the ontological ground on which our impression of a really-existing universe rests?
The prevailing epistemological frameworks of the twentieth century positioned the human mind as a passive receptor of objective reality—a "mirror of nature" (Rorty, 1979) tasked with accurately reflecting an external world. Yet emerging syntheses between cognitive neuroscience, phenomenology, and quantum physics suggest a radical departure from this dualistic separation of observer and observed. This paper introduces the Observer-Participant Theory, a comprehensive theoretical framework that reconceptualizes the role of awareness in human experience. The central thesis posits that conscious engagement with mental phenomena constitutes an active, participatory process that inherently shapes, modulates, and co-creates the fabric of experienced reality (Schwartz et al., 2016). The Observer-Participant Theory represents a paradigmatic shift from a classical, Newtonian model of psychology—where mental states are viewed as deterministic outcomes of biological machinery—to a quantum-neurodynamic model. Here, consciousness is not a passive epiphenomenon but an active agent in the construction of subjective reality (Wallace, 2007). This paper argues that directing conscious attention toward internal or external phenomena is never a neutral measurement; rather, it constitutes an energetic intervention that influences the ontology of what is observed. Awareness operates not merely as a window through which reality is perceived, but as a dynamic force through which reality is continuously crafted, refined, and actualized (Pribram, 1991).
Introduction The central claim of this book is that all intentional phenomena are quantum mechanical. That goes both for the private thoughts inside our heads and for public or collective intentions like norms, culture, and language, which we might generically call institutions. I suggested in Chapter 1 that by virtue of their dependence on consciousness, a classical, materialist ontology cannot explain these phenomena, and as such from that perspective they must be epiphenomenal or illusions. In the rest of this book I show that a quantum, panpsychist ontology can provide a physical basis for what we all know to be true, which is that both private and collective intentions are part of the natural order. The elementary parts of social ontology are human beings in their biological individuality, which in this Part I consider in abstraction from their lived social contexts. By taking humans out of their natural habitat I aim to focus attention on what we bring to the social table simply by virtue of being organisms of a certain kind. The abstract individual is a common enough starting point in classical social theory (think Hobbes and the state of nature). However, it might seem an odd place to begin a quantum social theory, given the holism of quantum phenomena, both “all the way down” in having no elementary parts, and “all the way across” in universal non-locality. What look like separate organisms are just local decoherence effects of quantum fields; everything really is related to everything else. In that light the abstract individual appears not just as an abstraction, but as positively occluding what “the individual” really is. However, there is a difference between what is true of a universal ontology and what is practically relevant to specifically socialontologies, which are constrained by the properties of their constituent organisms. Unlike some organisms, humans live in highly interdependent societies, and most of what is interesting about us is socially constituted as well.