The relationship between physics and consciousness is explored through
various hypotheses, most prominently through quantum physics, which
proposes that quantum-mechanical phenomena like superposition and
entanglement play a crucial role in the brain's function and the emergence
of consciousness. Some theories suggest consciousness arises from quantum
processes within the brain, such as the Orchestrated Objective Reduction
theory by Penrose and Hameroff. Other approaches suggest consciousness is a
fundamental property of the universe, or that consciousness and physics are
dual aspects of a single underlying reality.
Quantum mind hypotheses
Quantum mechanics in the brain: These hypotheses suggest that the brain's
functions cannot be fully explained by classical physics and that quantum
phenomena are essential. They propose that quantum effects in
smaller-than-cell structures, like microtubules, could be involved in
generating consciousness.
Non-computable aspects: Sir Roger Penrose's theory, developed with Stuart
Hameroff, suggests consciousness arises from a quantum collapse of the wave
function that is non-computable, meaning it cannot be replicated by an
algorithm like a computer. This collapse is proposed to occur in
microtubules within neurons.
Challenges and criticism: A major challenge is that quantum states are
fragile and typically require extremely cold and isolated environments,
unlike the warm, wet environment of the brain. Critics point out that any
quantum coherence in the brain would likely collapse too quickly to be
relevant for consciousness.
Other physics-based approaches
Panpsychism: This perspective suggests that consciousness is a fundamental
property of the universe, and it is not limited to biological brains. In
this view, the physical world may have "proto-conscious" properties, even
at the level of individual particles.
Unified reality: Some theories propose that consciousness and the physical
world are not separate but are rather two different aspects of a single,
deeper reality. This approach aims to provide a framework where mind and
matter are fundamentally linked.
Current status
Unvalidated hypotheses: The quantum mind and other physics-based hypotheses
about consciousness remain unvalidated scientific theories.
Overlapping with mysticism: Some of these hypotheses can overlap with
quantum mysticism, blurring the lines between scientific theory and
non-scientific belief.
Ongoing debate: The relationship between physics and consciousness is a
subject of ongoing debate, with researchers exploring different models and
searching for supporting evidence.
Applying Quantum Concepts to Mental Systems
Today there is accumulating evidence in the study of consciousness and
cognition that quantum concepts like complementarity, contextuality,
entanglement, dispersive states, and non-Boolean logic play significant
roles in mental processes and have epistemological consequences (see, e.g.,
Bruza et al. 2023). Corresponding quantum-inspired approaches address
purely mental (psychological) phenomena using formal features also employed
in quantum physics, but without involving the full-fledged framework of
quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. The term “quantum cognition” has
been coined to refer to this new area of research. Perhaps a more precise
characterization would be non-commutative structures in cognition.
On the surface, this seems to imply that the brain activity correlated with
those mental processes is in fact governed by quantum physics. The quantum
brain approaches discussed in Section 3 represent attempts that have been
proposed along these lines. But is it necessarily true that quantum
features in psychology imply quantum physics in the brain?
A formal move to incorporate quantum behavior in mental systems, without
referring to quantum brain activity, is based on a state space description
of mental systems. If mental states are defined on the basis of cells of a
neural state space partition, then this partition needs to be well tailored
to the neural dynamics in order to lead to robustly defined states.
Especially for nonlinear neural dynamics, ad hoc chosen partitions are
typically “misplaced” and will create incompatible mental descriptions
(Atmanspacher and beim Graben 2007) and mental states may become entangled
(beim Graben et al. 2013).
This implies that quantum brain dynamics is not the only possible
explanation of quantum features in mental systems. Assuming that mental
states arise from partitions of neural states in such a way that
statistical neural states are co-extensive with individual mental states,
the nature of mental processes depends strongly on the kind of partition
chosen. If the partition is not properly constructed, it is likely that
mental states and observables show features that resemble quantum behavior
although the correlated brain activity may be entirely classical: quantum
mind without quantum brain.
Mind-Matter Correlations and the Role of Meaning
In the Pauli-Jung conjecture, particularly striking ones among these
correlations are called synchronistic, and Meier (1975) has generalized
this concept to psychosomatic relations. A comprehensive taxonomy of
mind-matter correlations following from Pauli’s and Jung’s dual-aspect
monism was proposed by Atmanspacher and Fach (2013). They found that a
large body of empirical material concerning more than 2000 cases of
so-called “exceptional experiences” can be classified according to their
deviation from the conventional reality model of a subject and from the
conventional relations between its components (see Atmanspacher and Rickles
2022 for more details). Synchronistic events in the sense of Pauli and Jung
appear as a special case of such relational deviations. See Atmanspacher
and Rickles (2022) and Fach (2023) for extensive studies in clinical
psychology, psychophysiology, and psychophysics supporting the taxonomy
with empirical material.
An essential criterion required for synchronistic correlations is that they
are meaningful for those who experience them. This re-emphasizes the
significance of meaning that is found in Eddington-Wheeler’s meaning
circuit and Bohm-Hiley’s active information. It is thus tempting to
speculate about the concept of meaning as a basic ingredient in our overall
view of reality in toto. Although this entails difficult problems
concerning a clear-cut definition and operationalization, something akin to
meaning, both explicitly and implicitly, might feature highly significantly
in the framework of decompositional dual-aspect thinking. Along with the
distinction of meaning as sense and meaning as reference due to Frege
(1892), Atmanspacher and Rickles (2022) suggested to distinguish a surface
structure of meaning between the mental and the physical from a deep
structure that connects these two domains with their psychophysically
neutral ground.
Primas (2003, 2009, 2017) proposed a dual-aspect approach where the
distinction of mental and material domains originates from the distinction
between two different modes of time: tensed (mental) time, including
nowness, on the one hand and tenseless (physical) time, viewed as an
external parameter, on the other (see the entries on time and on being and
becoming in modern physics). Regarding these two concepts of time as
implied by a symmetry breaking of a timeless level of reality that is
psychophysically neutral, Primas conceives the tensed time of the mental
domain as quantum-correlated with the parameter time of physics via
“time-entanglement”. This scenario has been formulated in a Hilbert space
framework with appropriate time operators (Primas 2009, 2017), so it offers
a formally elaborated dual-aspect quantum framework for basic aspects of
the mind-matter problem. It shows some convergemce with the idea of
temporally nonlocal mental states as addresed in Section 4.2.
As indicated in Section 3.2, the approach by Stapp contains elements of
dual-aspect thinking as well, although this is not much emphasized by its
author. The dual-aspect quantum approaches discussed in the present section
focus on the issue of a generalized mind-matter relationship based on
psychophysically neutral “non-product states” reminiscent of quantum
entanglement, rather than on physical state reduction. The primary purpose
here is to understand correlations between mental and material domains by
their common ground, and not by direct causally efficacious interactions
between them.
A final note in this section refers to the position of panpsychism or pan
experientialism, respectively (see Skrbina 2003, Seager 2020, and the entry
on panpsychism). Other than dual-aspect monism, panpsychism has no
psychophysically neutral domain of reality characterized by non-product
states. It is a plainly dualistic approach with mental and physical domains
that are primordially coupled to one another (as in psychophysical
parallelism). In such a situation it is important to understand “mentality”
more generally than restricted to human “consciousness”. Unconscious or
proto-mental acts as opposed to conscious mental acts are notions sometimes
used to underline this difference. The special case of human consciousness
within the mental domain might be regarded as special as its material
correlate, the brain, within the material domain.
Maybe the best prognosis for short-term future success among the examples
described in this overview, at least on foreseeable time scales, goes to
the investigation of mental quantum features without focusing on associated
brain activity in the first place. A number of corresponding approaches
have been developed which include concrete models for concrete situations
and have lead to concrete predictions and successful empirical tests. On
the other hand, a coherent theory behind individual models and relating the
different types of approaches is still to be settled in detail. With
respect to scientific practice, a particularly promising aspect is the
visible formation of a scientific community with conferences, mutual
collaborations, and some perspicuous attraction for younger scientists to
join the field.
K RAJARAM IRS 211125
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 at 08:05, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*You’re asking a *deep and perfectly valid question*:
>
> If physics reduces everything to *fields and excitations*, and if photons
> are not “things” but patterns of excitation, then:
>
> -
>
> *Who* is doing the labeling?
> -
>
> *What* is the reference point for calling one excitation “a photon”?
> -
>
> *Is consciousness separate from fields, or part of the same
> field-based universe?*
> -
>
> *Is consciousness required as a classifier?*
>
> Let me answer carefully, without dismissing the philosophical dimension,
> and without slipping into pseudoscience.
> ------------------------------
> ✅ *1. Physics does not deny consciousness. It brackets it.*
>
> Physics does *not* say:
>
> -
>
> “consciousness doesn’t exist,” or
> -
>
> “consciousness has no role,” or
> -
>
> “consciousness is outside nature.”
>
> What physics says is much narrower:
>
>
> *Physics models the behavior of physical systems by describing how fields
> evolve. It does not attempt to model subjective experience.*
>
> This is not an exclusion — it’s a *scope limitation*.
> ------------------------------
> ✅ *2. Why physics classifies photons without invoking consciousness*
>
> Photons are not classified by humans *opinion*.
> They are classified because:
>
> *The mathematics of quantum field theory forces them to have specific
> behaviors.*
>
> For example, a photon is defined by:
>
> -
>
> Spin = 1
> -
>
> Mass = 0
> -
>
> Representation of the Poincaré symmetry group
> -
>
> Gauge field excitation of U(1) electromagnetism
>
> These definitions *exist* whether or not consciousness observes them.
> They follow from the structure of spacetime + the EM field.
>
> So the classifier is not a person.
> It is *mathematical consistency*.
> ------------------------------
> ✅ *3. “Who is doing the classification?” — Two Answers* *A. In physics:*
>
> The classification arises from *symmetry*, *mathematics*, and
> *self-consistency* of the field equations.
>
> Nobody “chooses” it.
> We simply *discover* that the field supports quanta with certain
> properties.
> *B. In consciousness:*
>
> Humans give names to what mathematics reveals.
>
> -
>
> “photon” is a label
> -
>
> “field excitation” is a conceptual model
> -
>
> but the underlying structure exists independent of labels
>
> Physics is “objective description,”
> consciousness is “subjective interpretation.”
>
> They meet, but they are not identical.
> ------------------------------
> ⭐ **4. Your deeper question is legitimate:
>
> If consciousness itself is an emergent field-process, isn’t consciousness
> part of the same universe of fields?**
>
> Yes.
> Modern neuroscience and physics suggest:
>
> *Consciousness arises from complex, dynamic patterns of activity in the
> brain’s matter and electromagnetic fields.*
>
> This does not make consciousness “non-physical” —
> it makes it *emergent*.
>
> In this view:
>
> -
>
> Photons are excitations of the EM field.
> -
>
> Neurons are excitations of the biological field.
> -
>
> Consciousness is an emergent property of large-scale organized
> biological fields.
>
> Everything is fields — but *arranged at different levels of complexity*.
> ------------------------------
> ⭐ **5. Important distinction:
>
> Physics does not explain consciousness,
> but consciousness does not rewrite physics either.**
>
> Physics is about *how fields behave*.
> Consciousness is about *what it feels like to observe fields*.
>
> Different domains.
>
> One is not a replacement for the other.
> ------------------------------
> ⭐ *6. Could consciousness be a fundamental field?*
>
> This is *philosophically open*.
> There are hypotheses:
>
> -
>
> *Panpsychism:* consciousness is intrinsic to all matter.
> -
>
> *Integrated Information Theory:* consciousness = integrated structure.
> -
>
> *Orch-OR (Penrose):* quantum effects in microtubules.
> -
>
> *Dual-aspect monism:* fields have both physical and experiential
> aspects.
>
> None are confirmed by physics, but none are ruled out.
>
> What physics can say:
>
> Consciousness interacts with the world through neural physical processes,
> so consciousness must be compatible with the same field ontology that
> explains photons.
>
> But physics cannot yet say *what consciousness is* in fundamental terms.
> ------------------------------
> 🧠 *7. So what is the “common reference”?*
>
> You asked:
>
> “Is there no common reference, say consciousness?”
>
> There *is* a common reference — *the universe’s field structure itself*.
>
> But consciousness becomes *the local interpreter of that structure*,
> not the creator of the classification rules.
> ------------------------------
> 🔥 *8. The simplest reconciliation* *Physics describes the world from the
> outside (third-person view).* *Consciousness describes the world from the
> inside (first-person view).*
>
> They are two “projections” of the same underlying reality,
> much like wave and particle descriptions are two views of the same quantum
> object.
> ------------------------------
> If you want, we can go deeper into:
>
> -
>
> whether consciousness can collapse wavefunctions
> -
>
> whether the universe requires an observer
> -
>
> panpsychism vs physicalism
> -
>
> why photons have objective definitions
> -
>
> whether fields are the true ontology of reality
> -
>
> whether “mind” can be a field
>
> Just tell me which direction you want to explore.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLJbiTGnk4jdn0pW%2BVW2-quYmG-dwo99JYLNin63x%3DHDg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLJbiTGnk4jdn0pW%2BVW2-quYmG-dwo99JYLNin63x%3DHDg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorkFbzKFdL-yU71-q%2B4uTMAwM7cf0gKtMu2wsHTzoDSbQ%40mail.gmail.com.
