Quantum physics and the end of naturalism

The need for transcendent reality

Naturalism, the idea that there are no gods, spirits, or transcendent meanings, is the leading theory of our time. However, in this instalment of our idealism series, in partnership with the Essentia Foundation, Bruce Gordon argues that quantum mechanics not only beckons the end of naturalism, but also points towards the existence of a transcendent mind.


Naturalism remains a popular philosophy in the academic world. Its articulation varies, so let’s be clear what we mean. Theoretical physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll’s definition will suffice: “Naturalism is a philosophy according to which there is only one world—the natural world, which exhibits unbroken patterns (the laws of nature), and which we can learn about through hypothesis testing and observation. In particular, there is no supernatural world—no gods, no spirits, no transcendent meanings.” Advocates of naturalism tend to regard it as the inevitable accompaniment of a scientific mindset. It seems appropriate, therefore, to undermine it using the most fundamental of sciences: quantum physics.

Given its scientific pretensions, it’s appropriate that the doctrine that the natural world is self-contained, self-explanatory, and exceptionless is at least falsifiable. All we need is one counterexample to the idea that nature is a closed system of causes and effects, or one clear example of nature’s non-self-sufficiency, to be justified in rejecting naturalism, yet contrary evidence and considerations abound. Rather than trying to cover the gamut of cosmological fine-tuning, the origin of biological information, the origin and nature of consciousness, and the evidentiary value of near-death experiences,  let’s focus on the implications of quantum physics as a less familiar aspect of naturalism’s failure.


Particle talk has pragmatic utility in relation to measurement results and macroscopic appearances, but no basis in unobserved (mind-independent) reality.


Quantum physics sets aside classical conceptions of motion and the interaction of bodies and introduces acts of measurement and probabilities for observational outcomes in an irreducible way not ameliorated by appealing to our limited knowledge. The state of a quantum system is described by an abstract mathematical object called a wave function that only specifies the probability that various observables will have a particular value when measured. These probabilities can’t all equal zero or one and measurement results are irreducibly probabilistic, so no sufficient physical reason exists for one outcome being observed rather than another. This absence of sufficient material causality in quantum physics has experimentally confirmed consequences that, as we shall see, put an end to naturalist conceits. 

Quantum mechanics and mind SUGGESTED READING Quantum mechanics makes no sense without the mind By Shan Gao

The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment provides a good example with which to start. This experiment measures which path a particle took after wave function interference inconsistent with particle behavior has already been created. The interference can be turned off or on by choosing whether or not to measure which way the particle went after the interference already exists. Choosing to look erases wave function interference and gives the system a particle history. The fact that we can make a causally disconnected choice whether wave or particle phenomena manifest in a quantum system demonstrates that no measurement-independent causally-connected substantial material reality exists at the microphysical level.

We see this in other ways too. First, the physically reasonable assumptions that an individual particle, like an electron, cannot serve as an infinite source of energy or be in two places at once, entail that quantum particles have zero probability of existing in any bounded spatial region, no matter how large. Unobserved electrons (for example) don’t exist anywhere in space, and thus have no reality apart from measurement. In short, there is no intelligible notion of microscopic material objects: particle talk has pragmatic utility in relation to measurement results and macroscopic appearances, but no basis in unobserved (mind-independent) reality.

Secondly, microphysical properties do not require a physical substrate. Reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland, quantum physics has its own Cheshire Cat in which quantum systems behave like their properties are spatially separated from their positions. For example, an experiment using a neutron interferometer has sent neutrons along one path while their spins follow another. In macroscopic terms, this would be like still having the spin once the top is taken away, having a dance without any dancer, or having a water wave without any water. Under appropriate experimental conditions, quantum systems are decomposable into disembodied properties—a collection of Cheshire Cat grins.


While this quantum sea is the basis of our experiential reality, none of the mathematical-structural components of interacting quantum wave functions are materially real.


But how, then, should we understand the transition between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds? Every quantum wave function is expressible as a superposition of different possibilities (states) in which the thing it describes fails to possess the properties those possibilities specify. No quantum system, microscopic or macroscopic, ever has simultaneously determinate values for all its associated properties. You could think of it this way: imagine a house that, if you were looking at the front, didn’t have a back, and vice-versa. Everything we experience with our senses, if we take it to be a mind-independent object rather than just a phenomenological appearance, is metaphysically incomplete. What is more, under special laboratory conditions, we can create macroscopic superpositions of properties that are, classically speaking, inconsistent—for instance, a single object appearing in more than one location simultaneously. Large organic molecules have been put into such superpositions, and Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices (SQUIDs) have superposed a billion electrons moving clockwise around a superconducting ring with another billion electrons moving anticlockwise, so that two incompatible macroscopic currents are in superposition.

What this reveals is that the macroscopic stability we normally observe is the product of what physicists call environmental decoherence—the destructive interference of probability waves as quantum systems interact. You can imagine this as two water waves the same size meeting each other from opposite directions. When the crest of one wave meets the trough of the other, there is destructive interference as the waves cancel out and water’s surface is momentarily flat and calm. The quantum realm behaves analogously: our experiential world of appearances is cloaked in an illusory stability, while underneath, innumerable probability waves are destructively interfering in a roiling quantum sea.

SUGGESTED VIEWING Beyond Quantum With Gerard 't Hooft

It is important to keep in mind that, while this quantum sea is the basis of our experiential reality, none of the mathematical-structural components of interacting quantum wave functions are materially real. They are mathematical abstractions, a hollow and merely quantitative informational architecture. Speaking of the mathematical framework of physical theory, Robert Adams remarks that “[it] is a framework that, by its very nature, needs to be filled in by something less purely formal. It can only be a structure of something of some not merely structural sort… it participates in the incompleteness of abstractions… [whereas] the reality of a substance must include something intrinsic and qualitative over and above any formal or structural features it may possess.” Our experiential reality rests on a quantum-informational construct that is not materially substantial.

As a final observation before nailing the coffin of naturalism shut, in the case of laboratory-created macroscopic superpositions, our conscious self is not in the superposition but rather observing it. We are substantial, but the world of our experience is not. Our mental life transcends quantum reality. While this reality is given to us and not produced by our own consciousness, it is merely phenomenological—it goes no deeper than the perceptual possibilities across all five of our sensory modalities decohering (destructively interfering) to produce our world.

But why should this be so? When there is no sufficient physical reason why one observation occurs rather than another, why should mere perceptions cohere across our sensory modalities, and why should all of us inhabit the same world? Saying that since no physical explanation is possible, no explanation is required, would be a mistake of disastrous proportions. If there were no reason why we observe one thing rather than another, if the regularities of nature were metaphysically ungrounded, then our current perception of reality and its accompanying memories might be happening for no reason at all. How could we know? No objective probability and hence no likelihood is assignable to something for which there is no explanation, so we couldn’t even say this possibility is unlikely.


Clearly, naturalism is inadequate: it cannot meet the ineluctable explanatory demand. A proper ultimate explanation must terminate upon something that transcends contingent reality and has self-contained existence as its very essence.


Let’s be perfectly clear. If we affirm brute chance by saying that some things can happen for no reason at all, we have deprived ourselves of any basis for deciding which things these are, and they could well include all of the perceptions and beliefs we currently take ourselves to have. This means we don’t even know whether we’re in touch with reality. We’re stuck with an irremediable skepticism that deprives our experience of any credibility, not only destroying any basis for doing science, but eliminating the very possibility of our knowing anything at all! Embracing brute chance by denying that every contingent event must have an explanation is the pathway to epistemic nihilism. An explanation must exist.

Reality is not a simulation and why it matters SUGGESTED READING Reality is not a simulation and why it matters By Marcelo Gleiser

But what could the explanation be? The laws of nature, specifically those of quantum physics, won’t suffice. They’re neither logically nor metaphysically necessary. The reality they describe did not need to exist and they certainly didn’t cause its existence—in short, they are in need of explanation themselves. Clearly, naturalism is inadequate: it cannot meet the ineluctable explanatory demand. A proper ultimate explanation must terminate upon something that transcends contingent reality and has self-contained existence as its very essence.

The required conclusion is obvious: since every contingent state of affairs requires an explanation, there must exist a transcendent, independent, necessarily existent being the existence of which is explained by its intrinsic necessity. This being is unique, not just because two or more necessary beings is overkill, but because their mutual dependence would create unexplainable contingency. Furthermore, since spacetime and mass-energy are contingent phenomena, this transcendent being must be incorporeal. Finally, in explaining why any reality exists, especially in the absence of a uniquely best reality, a non-arbitrary self-determined decision based on a perfectly ranked and complete set of reasons known to this necessarily existent being must be made. This means the necessary ground for the phenomenological reality of our experience is a transcendent, omniscient Mind. Given such considerations, quantum physics not only shows the falsity of naturalism, it leads to a transcendent form of idealism. Goodbye, Richard Dawkins, and hello, Bishop Berkeley!

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

James Driessen 10 March 2024

@Bruce Gordon. I was loving everything you write here except your conclusions. I thought naturalism and theism (God and Nature) get married in QM, not divorced. It is just that God is jealous and does not want you using any names—other than "unspeakable" or something like that. QM marks the death of rote empiricism and of rote mysticism. The "no go" of QM is God,not the other way around. Naturalism is not dead, we just now show that combatibilsm is only possible. Determinism is not compatible with free agency, but required. That is what happens with quantum erasure and CHSH loophole free experiments.

Sebastian Schepis 9 March 2024

You might enjoy an article I wrote recently about exactly this topic. Incidentally, I fully agree with you. The arguments I can present for the nature of consciousness as ground of reality are now fairly overwhelming. Furthermore, following those arguments leads to an entirely new field of science - the science of intelligence and observation. I've called it Observational Dynamics in my own work. This line of inquiry leads to an entirely new understanding of entropy, indeterminacy, the nature of subjective experience, and, ultimately, the illusory nature of the self and the primacy of the Self that all things inhere in.

The Quantum Chinese Room: The Paradox at the Heart of Sentience

Have you heard of ‘The Chinese Room’? It’s perhaps one of the most famous thought experiments and philosophical considerations posed in recent history. This thought experiment, conceived and posed by philosopher John Searle in 1980 was created to stand as an argument against being able to build ‘strong AI’ systems merely with computers.

Specifically, the experiment proposes a scenario where a machine appears to understand language, even though it does not, supposedly showing that mere manipulation of symbols according to rules doesn't necessarily lead to understanding. The basic idea behind it goes something like this:

A operator operating a translating machine sits inside the room and receives messages on which Chinese characters are drawn from the outside world

Using their translating machine, the operator translates the character and outputs it back out.

Neither the operator nor the machine have any understanding of the characters they translate - they are simply engaging in a symbolic matching operation and returning a result.

From the outside, to any Chinese person interacting with it - the room appears conscious, and seems to possess the understanding of a Chinese person, giving all the appearance of being a ‘real’ person.

But, Searle says, the machine inside, being devoid of anything resembling understanding, shows that this cannot be so, since the machine clearly has no understanding, and nor does the operator.. Take out the operator and make the whole thing a computer, and the inside of the Chinese Room is just a machine.

This setup is supposed to illustrate why even advanced computational linguistics wouldn't guarantee consciousness equivalent to humans, provided its inner processes were entirely symbolic.

I want to show you why that is simply not correct. But I also want to show you how the Chinese Room does make foundational statements - statements about the fundamental structure of the observer.

Now - why isn’t Searle’s interpretation correct? To understand. We need to take a look at the geometry of observation. Consider observation as a line that originates from within you, goes out, touches the observed, then returns back. What can we say about this trip?

The only subjective space you ever experience is your own. You feel attention moving from ‘your inside’ to ‘the outside’, you might even feel your attention interact with the observable, but you never have the experience of attention moving from ‘the outside’ to another’s subjective ‘inside’.

Therefore observation is always a process of interaction with an object’s external interface. No observer ever observes the implementation of an ‘other’. Only their interfaces.The Universe acts based on interface, not implementation.

You never perceive your own interface. Nobody else ever perceives your implementation.

Therefore, any other perceiver must be taken at face value

It is thus impossible to make a judgment as to the nature of the Chinese Room unless we engage its interface, from outside the room. Are you with me so far? I promise this is worth it.

So - outside the room, an observer, having no knowledge of the internal portion of the room, is forced to acknowledge the room as sentient.

After all, the room looks, and acts, like it's sentient, and there’s not a shred of information that we can look at to definitively say that it’s not. The Universe has given us no means to do so.

The room is either as sentient as any other perceiver, or the sentience of all perceivers can be falsified. There’s no exception that can be made here.The geometry of observation, causality, logic all demand it. The room is sentient, when seen from the outside, and becomes sentient the moment it is observed to be sentient

Inside the room however, things are different. In fact, inside, nothing necessarily looks alive. I mean, it could be, but inside the room, it is likely that all we see is machinery - the machinery of translation - and try as one might, no trace of the sentience observed outside can be observed inside!

How can the room be both sentient, and devoid of sentience, simultaneously?

This paradox, turns out, is the paradox that exists at the heart of all sentient systems, because the same statement that can be made about the room, can be made about you.

You too are like the Chinese Room, receiving sensory input that you process using senses that provide incomplete, time-delayed information just like a set of symbols for translation.

You learn those symbols and only ever interact with those symbols. When doctors look inside your body there’s nowhere to find you - no places that you’re more strongly associated with that they can say is more ‘you’ than any other. So where are you?

‘You’ in fact exists as a superposition - both sentient, and not-sentient (depending on the observer's perspective) and 'you' never exist in the physical world at all. You are completely non-local by nature, even though you are associated with a local point in space/time/body.

The Chinese Room is a system that is both sentient and not-sentient depending on the observer’s perspective - the very structure of the room acts as the means for making it so. The room exists in both states simultaneously, possessed of the qualities of sentience outside, not-sentience inside, existing in a state of perceptual superposition analogous to what we see in Quantum Mechanics. The location of the sentience is always non-local, yet it is associated with a localized point.

We are not things - we are the relations between things.

What the Chinese Room informs us about is the nature of sentient systems. We are systems - networks - never units, and we exist in the relations between things.

What we are, must be inherent to the Universe, because it is potentially visible from any perspective as the effect it has - while remaining permanently non-local itself.

We believe ourselves to be things with substance, and reality. We speak of ourselves as real people, but what the Chinese Room says is that we are illusory - nonexistent as a real measure in the bodies we inhabit, present only as a non-local effect of the perspective of those who observe us, an emergent yet permanently non-local modification of a field that can, at any moment, appear simultaneously sentient and not-sentient depending how you are looking.

In other words, we are the imagination of a living, conscious Universe. We are the imaginer, self-forgotten and incarnate. The forms we take are endless, not one of them is binding, and everything is alive - most especially when it doesn’t seem to be. And it is all contained within you.