Consciousness as the foundation: New theory addresses nature of reality

[erronis]

https://phys.org/news/2025-11-consciousness-foundation-theory-nature-reality.html
Annica Hulth, Uppsala University

Well, I dunno if this should be in the "Science", "Science Fiction", "Scepticism, ..." forum. Seems a bit "out there."
Cited paper at: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Universal-consciousness-as-foundational-field-A

Consciousness is fundamental; only thereafter do time, space and matter arise. This is the starting point for a new theoretical model of the nature of reality, presented by Maria Strømme, Professor of Materials Science at Uppsala University, in AIP Advances. The article has been selected as the best paper of the issue and featured on the cover.

Strømme, who normally conducts research in nanotechnology, here takes a major leap from the smallest scales to the very largest—and proposes an entirely new theory of the origin of the universe. The article presents a framework in which consciousness is not viewed as a byproduct of brain activity, but as a fundamental field underlying everything we experience—matter, space, time, and life itself.

Is this a completely new theory of how reality and the universe are structured?

"Yes, you could say so. But above all, it is a theory in which consciousness comes first, and structures such as time, space and matter arise afterwards. It is a very ambitious attempt to describe how our experienced reality functions. Physicists like Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Planck explored similar ideas, and I am building on several of the avenues they opened," says Strømme.

Uniting quantum physics with philosophy

For many years, Strømme has worked on a quantum-mechanical model that unites quantum physics with non-dual philosophy. The theory is based on the idea that consciousness constitutes the fundamental element of reality, and that individual consciousnesses are parts of a larger, interconnected field.

. . .



. . .

[Upthevibe]

1. Kick. N/T

[Bread and Circuses]

2. You may be surprised to know that this theory of non-local consciousness....

Is no longer ‘out there’ , it is being researched and discussed in academic conferences. It’s quite mainstream, but it’s note-worthy.

[erronis]

3. Thank you for that info. I figured coming from the University of Uppsala it had to be knowledgeable.

[stopdiggin]

4. Dunno. And I suspect nobody else does either. Which means ...

Again .. dunno.

First to admit this is probably beyond my ken. Do you suppose smoking mushrooms would help?

[erronis]

5. Sometimes almost anything to turn off those churning synapses....

I've actually been known to pray "Shut up and let me sleep!"

[Goonch]

6. ;-{) ""You are not IN the universe, you ARE the universe, an intrinsic part of it.........

[hunter]

7. C'mon, that's just wishful thinking.

I know people are scared of big numbers, especially those involving the depth of all time and space, but theories like this don't make us any more than we are, they make us less.

This is just another flavor of Creationism.

The universe will go on its merry way with or without "consciousness," whatever that is. Knowing that my own presence here in this universe is so infinitesimally small and brief, indeed that the presence of humanity itself is so infinitely small and brief, gives me a greater appreciation for those aspects of reality that I'm able to understand.

[NNadir]

8. Years ago there was Frank Tipler and John Barrow and the Anthropic Principle.

They were (or are - if still alive) respected cosmologists.

They had the strong anthropic principle - the universe exists because we see it and...

...the weak anthropic principle - we see the universe with its critical fundamental constants because the universe exists in a form that produces beings that can perceive it.

I'm kind of a credulous guy; I am uncritical of what is new to me until at least it's old to me, whereupon I feel free to reject it if warranted by my opinions. I certainly went through that with Frank and John. Their book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" is still on my shelf, remembered as something of a fun read, but frankly quite dusty and unopened for decades.

I think Frank had a follow up. Someone gave it to me, or maybe it was a Christmas or Birthday present. If I recall, I may have opened it and found it a little woo woo for my tastes, which is not to say that Frank and John are not smart guys but...

It smacked at the end of the day, for me at least, of religious philosophy or quasi religious, in that it is not subject to experimental verification. There is no way to study a universe with different fundamental constants.

(Freeman Dyson showed by studying a samarium isotope - I think it was samarium - that the fine structure constant has been constant for billions of years. I actually had in a wonderful afternoon, the opportunity to chat with him about it.)

I'm an atheist facing the end of his life; that we exist, that I exist, that the universe exists, strikes me as remarkable but wholly ineffable. I need no "why," only "is." It's a beautiful thing to have existed, or is and was in my case if not in every case, but I simply must accept that it seems to have occurred for reasons not subject to proof, and I'm sure it will go on.

No solipsism for me. If that's something like "faith," that it will go on, so be it.

[erronis]

9. A beautiful and thoughtful reply. Much to cogitate and enjoy.

Last edited Tue Nov 25, 2025, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I do really concur with your penultimate para:

I'm an atheist facing the end of his life; that we exist, that I exist, that the universe exists, strikes me as remarkable but wholly ineffable. I need no "why," only "is." It's a beautiful thing to have existed, or is and was in my case if not in every case, but I simply must accept that it seems to have occurred for reasons not subject to proof, and I'm sure it will go on.

[hunter]

10. I always think, "What sort of cosmic lottery did I win to experience all this?"

I have not answers.