How Mind Creates the World — Idealism 101
What is Reality?
Have you ever wondered what reality ultimately consists of?
A collection of particles? But then, what are particles?
Are particles just excitations of quantum fields? But then, what are quantum fields aside from being mathematical formulations?
Are reality fundamentally just a set of equations?
That doesn’t seem right, either. Equations are just logical statements, and they are ideas that don’t confer causal power to an external world by themselves.
For example, y = x² * t is a perfect mathematical equation, but that doesn’t grant this equation the power to cause motion.
Mathematics has been so successful at describing our reality that we often forget that it isn’t our reality.
Mistaking the Map for the Territory
To claim that a mathematical description of reality really is equivalent to reality itself is akin to saying that following the blue lines on Google Maps while sitting at your computer will really teleport you to the locations represented on the map.
We instinctively know that Google Maps is simply a very good approximation, i.e., a visually accurate description of streets and highways. To embark on the trip, we must physically maneuver ourselves in the real world. Even if we find that Google Maps is highly accurate and reliable, we would never mistake the map itself for the real world.
The same instinct should apply to our understanding of physical reality more broadly. We can use our language and rationality (mathematics or otherwise) to come up with a descriptive hypothesis of the world. We then act out those hypotheses in the form of experiments. The fact that experiments confirm our description of the world simply means we’ve found a useful map, not that we have finally found reality-in-itself.
Any scientific theory is, by definition, a descriptive statement about reality (i.e., a hypothesis) with evidence to support or refute it. Descriptive statements can be visual (like a map), symbolic (as in equations), or auditory (as in oral traditions). Yet, descriptive statements are necessarily just maps. That is, they are approximations of an underlying reality.
So what is Reality in itself? What gives rise to the universe that seems to behave according to predictable patterns?
Materialism
The default answer in our secular modern age to the above question is metaphysical “materialism.” Materialism postulates that a descriptive summary of the universe (in the form of mathematical expressions or otherwise) really is the universe. Moreover, these laws give rise to complex structures such as our brains.
Our brains then produce consciousness (i.e., our minds). Our consciousness is then granted perception and knowledge of the universe through physical mechanisms.
Idealism
Eastern philosophies and religions have postulated that the physical world is an illusion. The only thing real is the mind. Our minds create the physical world.
The claim that ultimate reality is nothing but a mind may initially seem absurd. However, there are good reasons to believe it is true.
In this article, I will attempt to lay out a possible mechanism for creating a transpersonal physical world out of nothing but raw consciousness.
We will refrain from asserting any kind of supernatural explanations or appeal to magic. Furthermore, the model below is a stylized example, thus not intended to capture all the nuance and complexities of our inhabited reality.
Definition Of Consciousness
Under idealism, the mind or consciousness is all that exists. Thus it helps to start by defining what constitutes consciousness.
Consciousness is defined as any and all experiences. All qualia, such as the color red, the smell of coffee, and the sensation of pain, as well as all thoughts and mental abstractions, such as an understanding of natural numbers and mathematics
Types of conscious experiences:
- The senses: scent, vision, pain, and other physical sensations
- Thoughts: Propositions that may or may not be true (ex: pandas are furry)
- Logical Propositions that Must be True: (ex: 1 + 1 = 2 or π = 3.14)
- False Propositions: If A = B and B = C, then A != C
In other words, all that can be experienced falls under the umbrella term consciousness. We can experience red. Therefore, red is part of consciousness. We can comprehend 2 + 2 = 4. Therefore, that very grasp is a conscious experience.
Definition of Universal Consciousness (or the Universal Mind)
Let’s define the universal mind as the superset of all conscious experiences. We postulate that there exists a mind who is capable of every possible experience. We make no assumption about whether this is the only mind that exists. We simply state that: if such a mind existed, it, by definition, possesses the potential for all experiences.
Just to help clarify (and to be logically rigorous), this definition has two components:
- The first component of this definition of a universal mind is that all possible conscious experiences belong to some superset called the (universal mind). This is just a trivial definition by putting the label “universal mind” on every possible experience that anyone across all time and space can possibly have. It is a simple definition that is trivially true.
- The second component to this definition of a universal mind is the hypothesis that such a universal mind has access to — this and can possibly operate on-these experiences. In other words, all conscious experiences are somehow connected or, at least in principle, connectable. This second component of the definition of the universal mind is not obvious or self-evident. Proof of its logical validity will be provided in future writing.
Note that by including all thoughts as part of consciousness we automatically accept that all mathematical abstractions are possible ontological primitives. In other words, if you are familiar with Platonic Forms, the above assumption validates and incorporates platonic forms as one aspect of consciousness, or more precisely as a subset of consciousness.
In other words, since the thought of 1 + 1 = 2 and the perfect circle exists in our minds, their existence in consciousness is unquestionable. At the very least these “ideal” forms exist in our mind, thus they may be instantiated in other mind like substrates.
Since these platonic ideals are conscious experiences, therefore, they are possible principles by which a universal mind can organize other conscious experiences into coherent conscious subsets.
Assuming a collective mind have access to both platonic ideals as well as “qualia”, which by definition the collective mind indeed does. Recall that a universal consciousness (or universal mind) is literally defined as that which have access to all conscious experiences.
Self-evident Properties of Consciousness
There are two self-evident (everyone can agree on) properties of consciousness that we observe every day.
- Combinable—conscious experiences (also sometimes called “qualia”) can be combined. For example, the experience of “red” can be combined with the experience of a “geometric sphere” to form the experience of a “red ball.” Conscious experiences can take the form of an entire scene, such as a forest, a cityscape, or your living room. This property of consciousness should be self-evident. We know implicitly because we have composite experiences all the time.
- Separable (also termed “dissociable”)- conscious experiences can be divided and forgotten. For example, you do not remember every minute of every day. When you wake up from a dream, you may not remember the content of the dream. Moreover, while you are in a dream, you seem to forget your identity in ordinary reality. Thus we conclude: it is possible for conscious scenes to be rendered inaccessible to another.
I wish to argue that we may use these two evidently manifest properties of consciousness to construct a toy universe with multiple sentient observers who all believe they are separate entities interacting in an objective physical reality.
If our familiar physical reality could be constructed using nothing more than mundane phenomena, then idealism wouldn’t seem so esoteric and so out there.
Why Bother?
Why do we even bother trying to construct physical reality using “mind” as primitive?
The answer: is that materialism utterly fails as a coherent metaphysical foundation. Not only that, materialistic metaphysical assumptions lead to nihilism and death anxiety and consequently lead to unnecessary suffering. After all, if you are nothing more than a special configuration of particles, then when those particles disperse, your subjective experiences are permanently gone.
However, we must not simply accept the alternative uncritically. We cannot simply believe in spirits and an immortal soul without a logical foundation or empirical evidence.
We must avoid wishful or magical thinking. Thus, we must apply rigorous logic and uncompromising empiricism. In other words, we must be scientific and rational.
One Last Note on Free Will Before We Begin
Under materialism, it is incoherent to talk about “free will.” However, under idealism, that’s not a problem.
Since materialism assumes the existence of objects without any agency obeying deterministic or probabilistic laws, all degrees of freedom for an agent to “choose” is logically eliminated. After all, if these laws are all that exist, and all that exist obey these laws, there can be no casual influences outside these laws.
If our brains are built from “materials” obeying deterministic (or probabilistic but completely randomized) laws, what is doing the “choosing” when our brain apparently “chooses” to do something?
Under idealism, you will notice that free will is simply an aspect of consciousness, like the color red. It is the familiar feeling of having agency and intentionality. Under idealism, we can accept the existence of free will through its subjective phenomenology, we don’t have to deductively prove its existence.
Creating Physical Reality — a Stylized Example
Imagine we assume the world consists of raw unbounded consciousness which exists all at once with no discernable patterns. Every conceivable arrangement of color, scent, sensation, and idea all exists eternally and simultaneously and presents itself to the one mind — which is ultimately all that really exists. However, this crowded party has no discernable order, no purpose or change.
Now imagine the Universal Mind wishes to order its experiences into a cohesive narrative. In this case, the one mind would like to play a simple two-player game.
The Universal mind — possessing the free will to alter its perception however it likes - performs the following steps:
Step 1 — The one mind separates itself into three sub-units of consciousness (akin to 3 personalities)
- Player 1
- Player 2
- The Referee (also known as the “computer”)
All three personalities start the game with no experiences, i.e., they are completely dissociated (separated) from the Universal Mind.
Our universal mind then creates the referee (also known as the “computer”). The referee uses mathematics to determine the position and velocity of the other two players. Furthermore, the referee also computes what each player looks like from the other player’s perspective based on the position of the players by applying the necessary mathematical 3-D transform.
The referee reports the result of the computation back to the two players, such that the players feel as if they are actually chasing one another in this construct called space-time.
The referee accomplishes this by providing what each player’s perspective looks like at each time step - pixel by pixel, to the Universal Mind.
As a reminder, the Universal Mind has access to the result of this computation because it is the referee. To the Universal Mind, accessing this information is exactly analogous to you remembering your own name.
Step 2- The players make their moves.
Suppose the cat and the mouse start at coordinates (0,0) and (1,0). The cat — possessing a modicum of free will afforded to it by the one mind, chooses to run at two m/s; the mouse chooses to run at 2.5 m/s
i.e., both players exercise limited free-will
Step 3 — The referee updates the players’ respective conscious experience
The referee accepts those choices and computes that at the next instance, 1 second later, the cat is now at coordinate (0,2) and the mouse at (0, 2.5). Thus based on computed geometry, the mouse should appear just a bit smaller than the previous instance. Thus the conscious perception of the cat is updated to reflect this change in perception. The cat sees the mouse as a bit further away.
i.e., the referee uses the two properties of consciousness: combination/separation, to update two separated partitions of its greater self.
How does the referee update the players’ perceptions?
The referee reports the new data to the Universal Mind, or rather the Universal Mind recalls this information and passes it to the players.
As a reminder, since the Universal Mind is also the player, updating the players’ perception is analogous to you hallucinating a red square with your eyes closed.
As a reminder: between each update of the players’ visual perceptions, the Universal Mind is also busy forcing itself to “forget” itself. As a result, each player experiences every frame with no memory of what happened in between. Their raw perceptions are seemingly continuous and create the illusion of movement through 3-dimensional space-time.
To convince yourself that this is at least in principle possible and not all that strange: recall the last time you dreamed where you had no recollection of your waking identity. Subjectively, the dream feels real while you are dreaming — however, when you are awake, you may be able to recall the whole dream as an aspect of your broader identity. Our player one and player 2 are analogous to your dream avatar. The crucial point here is not that the Universal Mind uses the same mechanism to force players to forget they are one with the Universal Mind but more so to demonstrate what is logically possible.
The End Result
The end result is that both players believe themselves to be separate conscious entities from each other. They will also empirically measure that they live in a physical world in spacetime and that there are “objects” in this physical world.
However, in fact, all that exists is their conscious perceptions, and those conscious percepts are being managed by a third player. All three players are derivative from a greater being we refer to here as “the universal mind.”
What would the players in this game measure? If they were good scientists?
If player one’s consciousness partition eventually developed into a Newtonian scientist. The cat would empirically measure the world as a world in which player 2 appears to get larger or smaller at random.
However, by “thinking” of a number such as 3.5, player one measures that he is able to temporarily make player two bigger.
Thus, he finds a reliable correlation between the size of player two and the number he thinks of in his head. He might formulate this correlation as a “law of physics” in his “universe.” Over time, he might become more and more convinced that he lives in a 3D universe where objects move at constant “velocity” until their thoughts change the velocity.
Player one becomes so convinced of this 3D universe’s prima facie ontology that he might never pause to ask how it is possible that he — the player — is even able to perceive such a universe.
It is only when the game ends that the player realizes that he is not in a “physical universe” at all. Instead, his conscious perception was continuously updated by the referee. The referee was only able to do that because they are all bounded by the “one mind”- they are all partitions of this Universal mind. The referee is just the subset that is really good at math, whereas the mouse and cat are blank partitions granted with the limited free will to “think of a number.”
Why is the Above Conceptualization of Reality Better than Materialism?
Disclaimer: I am not saying that our physical reality works exactly as stated above. Clearly the laws of physics governing our physical reality are much more complicated than a simple 2-agent game controlled by a single number as the sole degrees of freedom. I am however, making the claim that some more sophsticated version of the game above is closer to the true nature of reality than materialism
Above, I provide an example of how idealism could be true — first using just three self-evident axioms, then making a whole bunch of conjectures about intentionality and game setup.
Now, can we state definitively that this description of reality is actually true or closer to the truth than physicalism or materialism?
There is a strong argument that the above picture of reality is more true relative to materialism.
Why I believe Idealism, as Described Above, Is Probably True
This description of reality solves a few of the biggest mysteries and philosophical quandaries. These problems, as well as their solution under idealism, are elaborated on below:
Idealism Eliminates The Hard Problem of Consciousness
The hard problem of consciousness asks: how could subjective experience such as the “color red” arise from atoms, neurons, and photons — or any other physical substrate? This problem is infamously difficult because, in principle, no matter what explanation one offers, such an explanation is necessarily a descriptive statement. Such a descriptive statement might be fully correlated with a self-report of subjective experience, but it is difficult to see how it is that experience.
Under idealism, consciousness exists before the material world. Therefore, there is no hard problem with consciousness. Under materialism, we have to ask the opposite question: if consciousness is all that exists, how do we explain there exists an apparent material world outside of our personal consciousness? This article offers a potential model.
Idealism Solves the Problem of the Concreteness of “Being”
For anyone who has ever studied physics, you may have paused and wondered what “runs” the physical world. In other words, what is causing the observable world to follow some laws rather than another?
Most people think the equations we use to describe nature are all we need to understand the natural world. Yet, the greatest mystery is not what the equations of nature are, it is what makes nature follow those equations and not others.
For example, we all understand natural numbers (1,2,3 … etc.) as well as simple functions such as y = x²
By themselves, these equations are mathematical abstractions. They are ideas in our heads or abstract objects without a corporeal form. The equation y = x² has no casual power by itself to organize and impact our universe. It is just an “idea.” One must pause to ask what makes some mathematical equations congruent with how the physical world behaves, whereas other mathematical equations remain powerless equations.
So the question remains: how is it possible that some mathematical equations can be instantiated and be experienced as the concreteness of reality, whereas other mathematical equations remain purely abstract ideas?
Our answer under idealism: the “referee” partition of the One Mind updates everyone’s perceptions in accordance with a set of preferred logical principles. Thus the “realness” and “concreteness” of reality are just courtesy of the referee being really good at its job of computing and updating our perceptions.
Idealism avoids the incoherence of unbounded space and time.
Something is unsettling about infinities. Under materialism, space and time exist unconditionally. You might ask, what is beyond the edge of the current expanding universe? You get seemingly logically incoherent results if you postulate that all of those patches of space actually exist! Rather than only exist as a potential possibility and mathematic construct.
Under idealism, spacetime doesn’t exist independently of the mind. Thus there is “what’s beyond” the edge of space. Space is an illusion to satisfy the player’s current situation. The perception of any specific patch of “space” is created on the fly by the referee.
If a theory can simultaneously solve this many of the hardest problems in science and philosophy, then it must be considered a serious candidate for a theory of reality.
FAQs and Natural Follow-up Questions
The theory above makes it sound like we are in a computed simulation, but wouldn’t simulation requires a physical medium to do the “simulating”?
Computation does not have to have a physical substrate. When we examine what’s required for computation and logical processing, we find that it is completely substrate-independent. The fact that silicon-based chips does computation better than a wooden abacus is completely irrelevant to the fact that what gives rise to the phenomenon we call “computation” is independent of what performs the computation.
Information processing does not have to be physical. We simply need some memory to store “states” and something to apply transition logic on top of an existing “state” to derive the new “state.” In our physical reality, this type of information processing is often carried out by logic gates built out of semiconductors. However, it can, in principle, be carried out in your head if you concentrate hard enough and didn’t forget all the bits or forget to carry over the digits.
Who is to say that a much more powerful mind cannot hold all of the bits in its mind?
You might then ask: if you perform computation in your mind, isn’t the mind made of neurons and thus atoms and thus materials?
The answer is no: if we assume that the mind of materials and that “states” in the mind are reducible to states in the underlying material, then we are sneaking materialism back in again. The point is not to assume anything about what the mind is or isn’t if we are being metaphysically neutral at the beginning of our analysis.
To claim that the mind cannot be a medium for computation is to deny empirical observation that I can clearly do 1 + 1 = 2 in my head right now.
The only other way is to accept that. Indeed mind can perform computation, but states of the mind have a completely deterministic mapping to its material composition.
Mind as the substrate to simulation is both perfectly logical as well as closes the loop of infinite regress that characterizes naive simulation theories.
Are we saying all the billions of light-years worth of galaxies don’t exist?
Again it depends on what you mean by “exist.” They certainly don’t exist as mind-independent entities. However, to the extent they are devoid of any conscious observers, they only exist as mathematical structures in the memory of the Universal Mind.
Physical space is “created” as an apparent illusion to an observer when that observer needs to interact with that piece of physical space. For example, if I were to teleport to the Andromeda Galaxy right now and look at a random patch of space, the following would happen:
- All properties of that patch of space must be computed by the referee created by the Universal Mind.
- That patch will then be rendered in front of my eyes to create the experience and perception to correspond.
But I have a brain, the brain must produce consciousness, right?
Under the theory above, since the brain is made of “matter” and “matter” are just concepts in the Universal Mind, your brain is just a “concept”. Bits of 1 and 0 as memorized by the Universal Mind.
The data structure known as your brain must also obey the laws of physics. However, contrary to materialistic intuition, idealism postulates that rather than creating consciousness from matter, your brain filters matter to constrain consciousness. This gives us a causal pathway that explains the NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness) while avoiding the hard problem of consciousness.
Here is a simplified example:
Suppose we are trying to understand the color “red.” What it is? What it is like to experience it?
Under materialism, the color “red” is a photon of a certain wavelength. Then somehow, when such a photon is entangled with the right combination of neurons, the subjective perception of red arises in an observer.
This, of course, leaves us with the hard problem of the “color red.” How is it possible that a pattern of neuron firing literally is the color red? They are not isomorphic.
Now try it the other way: suppose that experience itself is the ontological primitive. In other words, the color “red” exists prima-facie. The brain is simply a sub-program running inside the Universal Mind that must interact according to the same rules as all of the other programs hosted on the Universal Mind.
In this setup, the Universal Mind can just make up a rule that when this sub-program (that you recognize as your brain) is in a certain state, as determined by the rule of the game, the subject (the segregated unit of consciousness) is allowed to see the color red. In other words, without a brain, you are raw awareness and pure free will. The brain simply assists in determining what that raw awareness is allowed to perceive at any given point in time about the larger physical world.
