Shadows of Reality——Consciousness is Fundamental
By Michael and James Hall — authors of the popular Audible book "The Sword of Damocles: Our Nuclear Age."
jameshall042999@gmail.com
What follows is a glimpse into our forthcoming book, "Heaven and Earth," a work that will explore universal consciousness and the many threads that weave it together.
If consciousness is fundamental, and not space-time, it would transform how we understand mind, matter, and the laws that govern them. After all, the two biggest questions in science are the nature of reality and the emergence of consciousness.
Treating consciousness as a fundamental feature of nature is a provocative hypothesis, but it is not supported by current physics. The idea that consciousness is central to reality remains primarily a philosophical proposal—often discussed under the label panpsychism—and it currently lacks an accepted physical mechanism or reproducible empirical evidence.
Yet history reminds us that today’s certainties often become tomorrow’s misconceptions. So perhaps the world is flat and the Earth is the center of the universe—or perhaps our present assumptions are simply the newest shadows on the wall.
In Plato’s Republic, the “shadows on the cave wall” cast from the firepit represent appearances—the world as it seems to us, filtered through our limited senses, habits, and assumptions. The observers in the cave see only shadows cast by objects behind them, and because they have never seen anything else, they mistake those shadows for the whole of reality. If one were to escape the cave, they would realize that the shadows were only derivative phenomena, not the true causes.[1]
Quantum theory offers a tempting place to explore the broader question of consciousness. In quantum mechanics, the microscopic world underlying everyday objects is described by the wavefunction—a mathematical map of possibilities. Instead of saying where a particle is, the wavefunction tells us all the places it could be and how likely each one is. A particle can exist in a superposition—a blend of multiple possible states at once—until something interacts with it, at which point one of those possibilities becomes the reality we observe. When we measure or disturb the system, a single definite outcome appears, as if the wavefunction has “collapsed” into one realized possibility.
Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner once suggested that consciousness might play a role in this collapse, proposing that conscious observation helps bring about the definite reality we experience. He later moved away from a literal “consciousness‑causes‑collapse” view as other explanations, such as decoherence, were developed.
In 1939 Fritz London and Edmond Bauer argued that the observer’s consciousness is important for measurement, framing quantum mechanics in terms of knowledge and experience rather than only objective states.
John von Neumann highlighted the role of subjective perception in the measurement chain. John von Neumann argued that the process of measurement in quantum mechanics cannot be fully described by physics alone, because it ultimately involves an observer’s perception. In his famous measurement chain analysis, he showed that every physical measuring device can itself be treated as a quantum system, meaning the chain of interactions—particle to detector, detector to recording device, recording device to brain—could, in principle, go on indefinitely. To resolve this regress, von Neumann suggested that the chain must end in the observer’s subjective experience, where the quantum possibilities are finally registered as a definite outcome. In this way, he highlighted that consciousness, or subjective perception, plays a decisive role in “collapsing” the wavefunction into the reality we observe.
Max Planck went further in a philosophical vein, famously suggesting that consciousness is primary and that matter may be derivative from it.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” Max Planck, The Observer, 25 January 1931.
If consciousness were shown to be fundamental, we would then need to ask whether individual minds cause local collapses or whether a single, universal consciousness plays a determining role. Demonstrating any of this would require clear, operational definitions of consciousness and collapse, a plausible mechanism linking mental states to physical variables, and reproducible experiments that rule out conventional explanations.
Highly respected mathematician and Nobel laureate Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff proposed a quantum‑based account of consciousness. Their Orch‑OR idea suggests that consciousness may emerge from quantum processes in microtubules inside neurons, with each conscious moment tied to a gravitationally induced collapse of quantum superpositions.[2] Others, however, feel intuitively that consciousness extends beyond the brain, or that the brain functions less like a transmitter and more like a receiver or switchboard for a broader, possibly universal, field of mind.[3]
The big question is: assuming consciousness is a fundamental reality, then is it emergent from some greater plane? Thinkers have proposed that a greater, cosmic plane could give rise to consciousness as an emergent force. This idea is most often discussed today under the label cosmopsychism, a view that treats the universe itself as having psychological properties from which individual minds derive.
This idea has deep roots and contemporary supporters. Variants appear in ancient Vedantic and other metaphysical traditions that treat ultimate reality as a unified conscious ground. In Western thought it echoes Spinoza’s notion of God‑or‑Nature and Jung’s idea of a collective unconscious, and it has also surfaced in modern speculative physics and philosophy such as John Wheeler’s participatory universe and several recent philosophical defenses.
Rupert Sheldrake proposed a very unique approach. He trained in biology and biochemistry at Cambridge and later worked in research roles including at Harvard and in plant physiology. Sheldrake has written widely for a general audience on topics that bridge biology and parapsychology.
Morphic resonance, the idea he introduced in A New Science of Life (1981) and expanded in later books, proposes that patterns of form, behavior, and organization are shaped not only by genes and local physical causes but also by morphic fields—fields that carry a kind of collective memory so that once a pattern has occurred, it becomes easier for the same pattern to recur elsewhere or later in time. In Sheldrake’s formulation, memory is inherent in nature rather than stored only inside brains, and the “laws” of nature behave more like evolving habits strengthened by repetition; organisms and systems therefore resonate with past similar systems, which can speed learning and pattern formation.[4]
Princeton physicist John Wheeler, a student of Niels Bohr, proposed the famous concept of It from Bit, arguing that the universe is not ultimately built from particles or forces but from informational relationships. In his view, physical reality—including spacetime itself—emerges from the dynamic unfolding of cosmic information processing. Later thinkers expanded this idea to include consciousness, suggesting that information has both an external, physical aspect and an internal, experiential one. Matter and spacetime can thus be seen as the outward expression of information, while consciousness reflects its inward dimension, making both inseparable facets of the same informational foundation.
Wheeler deepened this perspective with his theory of the participatory universe, in which observers are not passive witnesses but active participants in bringing reality into focus. Information becomes real only through interaction, making consciousness and observation essential to the universe’s ongoing creation. Taken together, Wheeler’s information theory and participatory universe present a cosmos where reality arises from informational choices shaped by observation.[5]
In contrast, physicist Maria Strømme’s consciousness theory places awareness itself as the universal field underpinning existence, collapsing pure potential into matter, space, and time. Strømme treats consciousness not as something produced by the brain, but as a universal field woven into the fabric of reality itself. According to her model, before the Big Bang there was a timeless state of pure potential, and it was this consciousness field—what she calls universal thought—that collapsed possibility into the structured universe we know. Just as particles emerge from invisible quantum fields, she argues that space, time, matter, and even individual minds arise from this deeper field of awareness.
This idea resonates with ancient non‑dual philosophies and modern panpsychism, while also offering a physics‑style framework that could make such claims testable. If true, it would mean consciousness is as fundamental as gravity, and that our personal awareness is a temporary expression of something eternal, returning to the universal field after death.[6]
Viewed side by side, Wheeler and Strømme suggest a continuum: Wheeler emphasizes information and participation as the scaffolding of reality, while Strømme identifies consciousness as the deeper substrate from which both information and observation emerge—making mind and cosmos inseparable facets of the same foundation.[7]
Building on Wheeler’s vision of reality as fundamentally informational, theoretical physicist David Bohm offered a complementary view that placed consciousness within the same deep structure of the universe. Bohm described reality as an undivided wholeness, expressed through the implicate order—a hidden dimension in which everything is enfolded into everything else—and the explicate order, the unfolded world of matter and events we perceive. In his framework, consciousness is not a separate phenomenon but an integral aspect of this implicate order, arising from the same dynamic flow, or holomovement, that generates physical reality.
Just as spacetime and matter unfold outward from informational relationships, consciousness represents the inward, experiential dimension of that universal process, making mind and matter inseparable expressions of a deeper cosmic wholeness.
Going back to Dr. Strømme’s inspiration, she draws on David Bohm’s implicate order—the idea that all things unfold from a deeper, nonlocal reality in which everything is interconnected—and pairs it with John Wheeler’s participatory universe, which holds that observers play an active role in shaping what becomes real. In her synthesis, consciousness emerges as the crucial bridge: the medium through which Bohm’s hidden order expresses itself outwardly, and the means by which Wheeler’s informational choices crystallize into the world we experience. Strømme’s universal consciousness field builds on these foundations, proposing that awareness itself is the substrate from which information, matter, and observation arise, making mind and cosmos inseparable facets of one unfolding reality.[8]
Across the past century, physicists and philosophers have increasingly explored the possibility that consciousness is not a secondary byproduct of matter but a fundamental feature of reality. Quantum theory opened this door by showing that observation plays a decisive role in shaping physical outcomes, leading figures such as Wigner, London, Bauer, von Neumann, and Planck to suggest that consciousness may be central to the measurement process. Later proposals—such as Penrose and Hameroff’s Orch‑OR model—sought to locate consciousness in quantum processes within the brain, while broader perspectives like cosmopsychism and Sheldrake’s morphic resonance argued that mind may extend beyond the individual, resonating with a universal or collective field.
Wheeler’s “It from Bit” reframed reality as fundamentally informational, with matter and spacetime as outward expressions of information and consciousness as its inward dimension. Bohm deepened this vision by describing reality as an undivided wholeness, where consciousness and matter alike unfold from a hidden implicate order. Taken together, these perspectives converge on a profound possibility: that consciousness and information are inseparable, woven into the very fabric of the cosmos, and that physical reality itself may be the dynamic expression of a deeper, living order.
The newest development in this conversation comes from high‑energy theoretical physics, particularly quantum gravity, which is increasingly exploring the idea that spacetime itself is not the basic ingredient of reality. Instead, spacetime may be something that emerges from deeper, non‑spatiotemporal structures—a shift widely discussed in contemporary research, including the Cambridge University Press volume Beyond Spacetime. High‑energy physics suggests that spacetime is an emergent structure that appears only at large scales. This view arises from attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, which behave incompatibly at extremely small distances and high energies. At the Planck scale, the smooth geometry described by Einstein seems to break down, implying that spacetime may not be fundamental at all.[9]
To address this, several quantum‑gravity programs propose deeper building blocks. Some models use networks or graphs instead of geometry; others treat quantum entanglement as the source of spatial connectivity; still others describe reality in terms of information, algebra, or causal order rather than points in space. Across these approaches, the shared idea is that spacetime—and even gravity—may arise from more primitive quantum relationships, much like temperature emerges from molecular motion.
If spacetime is emergent, many longstanding puzzles become easier to understand: singularities may be artifacts of using spacetime beyond its domain of validity; quantum nonlocality becomes less mysterious if space itself is derivative; and the universe’s “beginning” may not require a literal beginning of spacetime. This is why the field is so energized: it reframes the deepest questions in physics and opens the door to a more unified picture of reality.[10]
If consciousness were fundamental rather than a byproduct of matter, it would reshape our entire scientific worldview. Mind would no longer be treated as something that “emerges” late in cosmic history, but as a basic feature of reality itself—on par with space, time, and energy. Matter would then be understood as arising from deeper informational or experiential structures, and the laws of physics would look less like fixed external rules and more like expressions of a participatory, relational universe. This shift touches the two biggest open questions in science—the nature of reality and the origin of consciousness—suggesting that they may not be separate mysteries at all, but two sides of the same underlying truth.
As an afterword, we as authors are guided by an intuition that reality is sustained by a universal consciousness—a field that underlies and oversees existence itself. Our individual awareness may not be as direct or all‑powerful, yet it is inseparably part of this greater force. Within that vast field lies an energy that is both omnipotent and benevolent, reminding us that consciousness is not merely personal but a shared dimension of goodness woven into the fabric of the cosmos.
Notes:
[1] Plato, Republic, Book VII, Allegory of the Cave.
[2] Hameroff S., Penrose R., “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the Orch‑OR theory,” Physics of Life Reviews 11 (2014): 39–78; and Hagan S., Hameroff S., Tuszyński J. A., “Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? Decoherence and Biological Feasibility,” arXiv:quant‑ph/0005025 (2000).
[3] The “brain as receiver” or “mind‑at‑large” idea was popularized by Aldous Huxley, who described the brain as a “reducing valve” that filters a broader field of consciousness; Huxley developed this notion in The Doors of Perception and related essays, often citing earlier philosophical sources.
[4] Rupert Sheldrake, A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation, rev. ed. (Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House/Tarcher, 1983); and Rupert Sheldrake, “A New Science of Life / Morphic Resonance,” RupertSheldrake.org, accessed November 29, 2025, https://www.sheldrake.org/books-by-rupert-sheldrake/a-new-science-of-life-morphic-resonance.
[5] Wheeler did propose “It from Bit”, meaning every physical entity (“it”) arises from binary informational choices (“bit”).
5-https://thedebrief.org/new-study-claims-universal-consciousness-existed-before-the-big-bang-and-still-shapes-our-reality/.
[6] https://thedebrief.org/new-study-claims-universal-consciousness-existed-before-the-big-bang-and-still-shapes-our-reality/.
[7] Maria Strømme is a Swedish physicist and professor of materials science at Uppsala University who has recently advanced a bold new theory: that consciousness itself is the fundamental field underpinning reality. Instead of treating awareness as a by‑product of brain activity, she argues that it is the primary substrate from which space, time, matter. See: “life emerge; and https://thedebrief.org/new-study-claims-universal-consciousness-existed-before-the-big-bang-and-still-shapes-our-reality/.”
[8] Physicist Maria Strømme has proposed that conscious intention may, in principle, influence quantum fluctuations within zero‑point fields, producing subtle patterns akin to the effects of measurement in quantum mechanics. . . . On a larger scale, her theory predicts that collective emotional events might leave statistical traces in random number generators, as some controversial studies have suggested, and that consciousness in the early universe could have imprinted faint signatures in the cosmic microwave background, potentially detectable through advanced correlation analysis. ( https://thedebrief.org/new-study-claims-universal-consciousness-existed-before-the-big-bang-and-still-shapes-our-reality/.)
[9] Nick Huggett, Keizo Matsubara, and Christian Wüthrich, eds., Beyond Spacetime: The Foundations of Quantum Gravity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).
[10] The incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics at the Planck scale motivates the search for pre‑spatiotemporal structures.
”