Quantum Mechanics: How To Reconcile Science & Spirituality In A New Worldview

A new worldview for living

In my articles I constantly write about ethics, emotional and mental development and how to become a better version of yourself. It seems clear to me that we are all on this giant journey of self-improvement, whether we consciously know it or not. However, it’s not enough to know how to behave right - it’s also crucial to have a solid understanding of reality. We need a correct worldview to base our behavior on. Without that basis we are left in the dark.

Admittedly, the majority of humankind is not interested in exploring the big questions of reality. You, on the other hand, who read this article are apparently interested in that exploration, so let me guide you through the maze of science and spirituality in pursuit of clarity and understanding.

What is reality?

What is reality, actually? This seems like a straightforward question. Don’t we experience our own realities in the places we live, in the places we work or go to school, and in the places we travel to? On closer inspection we have to admit that our mundane reality is just a superficial layer, an outer facade of happenings. None of us can see the giant objects in space, nor do we perceive the microscopic cells, bacteria or microbes directly. And yet, they are all there as part of reality, existent, but not perceivable by human sight and touch. This should give every thinking person a confirmation that reality is vaster than what we can directly observe and feel with our five senses.

Even if we create tools such as microscopes or telescopes that help us take a closer look at the microcosm and macrocosm, the question arises: what is the ultimate cause of all those physical phenomena and objects? Why is there something out of apparent “nothing”? What’s the underlying layer of reality where everything originated from? Is there even such a unifying source, or is everything just random and disjointed?

These are important questions about the biggest mystery of human and cosmic existence, and even though it seems obvious that we cannot know the answers fully, there are still hints that can give us an idea about where the right answer might be. And the answers must be there, because reality exists and everything works as it does, whether we understand it or not. Our gaps in knowledge are only due to our limited perception and the lack of intellectual understanding, so that nature seems to be hiding the answers from us - answers which must definitely be there and at disposal of every entity that can penetrate through the veil of nature and see reality for what it is.

And isn’t that what all great religious founders and mystics claimed to be able to do in all times? Nevertheless, there’s no need to make a mystical or religious case for gaining new perspectives on reality. Instead, let me use science - quantum mechanics specifically - to provide us with the necessary impulse for the right intuitions about the nature of reality.

Can quantum mechanics explain reality?

Why would I even resort to quantum mechanics for answers and clues? This domain of science might offer us a glimpse into what nature is made of on the microscopic level. Quantum mechanics is part of physics, and physics is part of science. And science is the domain of human endeavor where we gather facts through observation and experiment. That’s where facts are to be found. Science refers to the Scientific Method which is a methodical analysis of gathered data from observations and experiments. The scientific method takes a look at the world, interprets data and makes statements about reality. That’s the best method we’ve got so far for explaining nature and reality, and quantum physics can help us understand reality in its smallest components.

The label “quantum mechanics” sounds very sciency, but let me break it down. The word “quantum” refers to particles and any quantities in energy systems, whatever they might be. All matter we know of is made of tiny particles. Everyone of us must have heard about atoms, electrons, and protons from school. We know that this is what the world and the universe is made of. Those tiny particles are basically portions of the “stuff” that makes up the world. That stuff is the fabric of the universe and the particles are the manifestations of that “stuff”. They are tiny portions of matter in space and time, vibrating and creating complex relations with each other. The word “quantum” is just a neat Latin word for “sum, portion, amount”, and denotes exactly those various particles, but also other energy phenomena that can be measured. The plural word is “quanta”. It means portions of reality (the particles and other energy phenomena) that can be described mathematically. And the relationships between those particles is denoted by the word “mechanics”. It’s about the workings of the particles and other quantities to create and hold the universe as we know it. That’s why quantum mechanics is deeply connected with particle physics. They revolve around the same domain of atomic and subatomic reality.

The fundamental layer of reality

Now that we’ve got the definition of quantum mechanics, what does this domain of science reveal us about the nature of reality? Historically, it’s quite interesting to find out how quantum mechanics developed as a science in a context. However, I really want to cut to the chase in this article. That’s why let me make the following statement:

At the fundamental level, as far as we can penetrate matter, reality is made of energy fields. It’s waves all the way down.

I know, this sounds incredibly vague, but stay with me. It gets even more interesting. When I mention energy fields, I mean that at its core reality is not made of physical particles as we know them, but of “ghost-like” fabrics that cannot be touched or perceived directly with our senses. Those energy fields govern themselves through their own mechanics and specific maths, and regular particles are tiny exitations in those fields, which makes them localized manifestations of those fields. To use a simile: the fields are like the ocean, and particles are the single waves that manifest the ocean for us, so that we can perceive its workings.

You cannot separate particles from their specific fields. An electron exists in an “electron field”, a quark exists in a “quark field”, etc. Particles emerge from energy fields which don’t obey the clear and predictable rules as we understand them in our classic world of sense perceptions.

Once you understand that the world is underlayed by invisible “ghost-like” energy fields which aren’t particles, two possibilities for defining a world view on reality open up:

In the first worldview you could clearly acknowledge the reality of fields and particles and just focus on the accompanying math that describes the relationships of those fields and particles without providing any further speculations about the actual fabric of the universe and its implications on our practical lives. This is the scientific approach, because the scientific method only works with things that can be observed and calculated with. It’s indeed a very strict and narrow word view.

In the second worldview you could try to interpret further what these facts actually imply about the nature of reality, a path which would eventually lead you to acknowledging that the material world is governed by phenomena and processes which truly aren’t material or even classically physical in the strict sense. This opens up the possibility for introducing the concepts of “spirits” and “ghost-like” interventions, which would soon bring you back to the ancient traditions from religion, spirituality, metaphysics and transcendental philosophy.

And scientists wouldn’t support it.

Limitations of science in describing reality

Scientists would never go down the path of the second worldview for very good reasons: historically, science and academia have established themselves as the opposition to religious dogmatism, people’s gullibility and ignorance which were so prevalent in the medieval times. Established “mainstream” scientists would never be willing to acknowledge that there might be a kernel of truth in ancient traditions and spirituality, because their careers would be at risk if in their academic papers they ventured into the philosophical and spiritual domains, rather than strictly keeping to maths and observational data. That’s why science, or rather scientists (i.e. scientism = human factor in science) choose the first alternative for describing the world, and that’s where the problems start.

The scientific method was created for observational data and experiments, and that’s where the relevance of science ends. What cannot be proven or observed becomes “scientifically irrelevant”. We get to the core question here: Is science about describing reality in general, or is science about describing only a small fraction of it that can be observed and measured?

It should be clear to every thinking mind that just because you cannot see or prove something, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. By default, this contextualizes the scientific method (science) not as a tool for describing generic reality, but only as a tool for describing a selected portion of it. Science really doesn’t make bigger claims than that. And that’s completely fine, as long as you are aware of it - which takes me to another problem: many people and even scientists themselves don’t seem to realize that science deals only with a portion of reality, not the entirety of it. To them, what cannot be perceived, must not exist.

That this view is absolutely incorrect can be made clear by the following example: for ages people weren’t aware of radioactivity which is completely invisible and its workings can be perceived only under certain conditions which weren’t possible until radioactivity was discovered at the transition to the 20th century and implemented in technology in the decades thereafter. To a medieval natural philosopher (back then their version of a scientist) radioactivity - if they knew of it - could as well be called magic, and to distinguish between science and magic would make no sense to them, whatsoever.

However, science progressed since then, established its methods and discovered radioactivity as part of nature. This clearly shows us that although science only deals with a small part of reality, what it considers reality constantly evolves and the limits of possibilities get extended as new discoveries and observations are made, which positively testifies to science as a successful method. However, the disadvantage is that science progresses at a snail’s pace. After discoveries are made, scientists still have to test them and only agree on a consensus after a long period of time has passed - and even that consensus doesn’t guarantee that the drawn conclusions are 100% correct or even complete.

And, oh boy - the conclusions of science are terribly incomplete, which can be made clear by pointing out the most obvious aspect that science totally undervalues in its concepts: CONSCIOUSNESS.

Consciousness vs. “Scientism”

Consciousness is that which matters most to us living human beings. In fact, everything that we care for, all love, suffering, joy, fear, our deepest hopes, thoughts, dreams and experiences happen in our consciousness. To understand the true nature of consciousness should be in the interest of every human being, and yet it is exactly that which science in its strict sense completely ignores or underrates. 

There is no place for consciousness in mathematical formulas and models. There is no consciousness assigned to the energy fields, particles, or the universe at large. Everything is supposed to obey statistical and probability laws, and nothing else. As long as you can make calculations, consciousness is completely excluded. In fact, science even takes it as a given that consciousness is a derivative of matter, just a byproduct of material evolution, a curiosity, a side effect of the brain, something that can be easily waved aside, because it’s scientifically inconclusive - a “hard problem”, irrelevant to the scientific method.

Scientists really dodge the question here. They make it way too easy for themselves by ignoring consciousness in their concepts. In my opinion, the best way in which this problem of “consciousness vs. ‘scientism’” was described is by Federico Faggin, an Italian-American physicist, engineer, inventor and entrepreneur best known for designing the first commercial microprocessor. I discovered a series of interviews with Faggin in which he gave his take on exactly this topic.

Consciousness as fundamental to reality

According to Faggin, consciousness needs to be treated as a fundamental of reality. In the same way as matter exists in the world and it’s pointless to deny its existence, in the same way consciousness exists in reality and it’s pointless to deny it. According to this view consciousness is not a derivative of nervous matter in the brain, but a fundamental property of reality that manifests itself in various ways on various levels of scale, and the human brain is just a peculiar manifestation of this fundamental feature. Animals have their own version of consciousness, in the same way as plants have their own type, the insects, microbes, all the way down to molecules and atoms, and even beyond.

A nervous system is not the only way to convey consciousness. Consciousness is a different word for awareness, and aren’t bacteria aware of their environment, shunning toxic substances, and gravitating to the ones that offer them nourishment? By that definition even bacteria and single cells have their own specific type of consciousness suited to their basic needs and adapted for the environment they live in. And where is there a nervous system, he? Doesn’t that apply pretty much to everything in the cosmos?

According to this view, even energy fields and particles of quantum mechanics can have their own type of consciousness, which would bring us back to a more transcendental and spiritual view of what constitutes reality on its fundamental level. That’s why I started this article with quantum mechanics - because it shows us that the nature of reality isn’t physical as we know it, but very fuzzy and indeterminate, you could say “ghost-like”. And if those fields also have consciousness, then the notions of spirit, soul and potential immortality are back in the conversation. Personal inner experience (consciousness) might not be located in the known classical world of the senses, but probably even deeper than the quantum realm of atoms and particles - and for that you would need a completely new type of physics and mathematics that doesn’t even exist, yet! Of course, for now that remains an educated speculation.

According to Frederic Faggin, this view would put us in a position to reconcile this eternal duality between science and spirituality. Both were never separated in ancient times. It is only a recent, modern invention to draw such a strict line between both and act as if these two were irreconcilable, even though there are obvious ways to reconcile them if we have the will to do that. And quantum mechanics offers us important insights to bring genuine spirituality back into a cosmological worldview that incorporates the scientific method, but clearly rejects the scientists’ reductionist and materialist view of reality, as well as theological dogmas, scholastic speculations and literal interpretations of religious scriptures.

Future of society

Bringing consciousness back as a fundamental into a universal worldview would dramatically alter society. If everything around us is defined by consciousness, then the whole world can truly be considered alive. Even though it might sound a bit crazy at first glance, this is not a new idea. Already in antiquity people believed in panpsychism, the belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness and thus a mind-like quality. You could take this notion further and regard the entire universe as a manifestation of a universal god-like Mind. Could it be that perhaps the solution to the problem of consciousness has always been with us all along?

What would all of this mean for our personal everyday lives? It would imply that the meaning of life is about developing our mental and emotional capabilities, because these are the content of consciousness through which consciousness (as an absolute aspect of reality) develops and learns to know itself even more. Such a view undoubtedly brings back meaning and purpose to human lives in a universe that was previously considered blind, unconscious, mechanical and devoid of finality. With the new worldview the universe is redefined in the context of modern cosmology and quantum physics, and thus without the previous theological dogmas and ignorance from the times past. Such a new view identifies new ways of insight through methods of consciousness itself. Illumination, intuition, inspiration would gain more popularity in our interests, and push back this obsessive one-sided focus on technology.

If consciousness is put front and center, then art and culture could be elevated to new heights. I truly believe that this is the direction society should take if we want to flourish - a shift away from the cold and lifeless obsession with technology and AI, and toward human consciousness and our living experience as the defining category for economy and culture. The AI revolution will ultimately lead us to a dead end (as social media and content creation already did), since real intelligence and real decision-making presupposes will and intent, and will and intent presuppose consciousness (real inner experience). Without consciousness there is no intent, no will, no self-initiated decision-making. It doesn’t work the other way around. You cannot build intelligence first and expect it to be making independent decisions like a human being. AI will obey its algorithm and learn as the algorithm dictates, yes - but it won’t develop its own will and agenda beyond the algorithm. For that you have to start with consciousness first - and that’s why both AI paranoia and AI dreams will never come true. AI will never replace humanity and remains forever just what it is - a useful tool to facilitate labour.

I claim that it’s exactly the other way around - humanity needs to transcend technology, go beyond materialism and our obsession with the economy to continue flourishing. We are all living consciousness and not “Homo oeconomicus” as academic sophistry sometimes makes you believe. In fact, the economy should become a mere background, as labor and industry are automated through AI, so that society can shift its focus more on human relations and a new global culture with the exploration of consciousness as the main driver for human endeavor and leisure time. And wouldn’t that be a much better future than what we currently envision?