Objective Reality Doesn’t Exist. We’ve Known This for a Century. It’s Time to Embrace It and Move On.
Casper Wilstrup is the CEO of Abzu. Follow him on LinkedIn or Twitter to keep up with AI, consciousness, and thinking machines.
Introduction
Imagine you’re holding a glass prism in your hand. You watch as a ray of light penetrates the prism and disperses into a beautiful spectrum of colors. You are an observer, and you’ve just witnessed physical reality. This is easy enough to accept, but what happens when we start to include consciousness, the subjective experience of being and perceiving, into the equation? Things get a little tricky, don’t they?
Science, and in particular physics, has a long history of dealing with objective realities — those that exist independently of our minds. It’s rooted in the idea that we can measure and understand the world around us objectively, that is, free from our subjective bias. But there is a problem with this idea. It excludes the ability to describe subjective experiences.
The definition of “objective reality” is that it is mind-independent — but which mind is it independent of? Science is contradictory if we don’t accept the existence of a subjective mind.
For a long time, scientists didn’t worry too much about the observer’s role in science. It was often brushed aside because physical phenomena were consistent, no matter who was observing. But that changed with quantum mechanics. Suddenly, the observer — the subject — took center stage in our equations. Quantum mechanics says that reality can vary based on who is observing it, which certainly casts a shadow of doubt on the concept of a universally consistent, objective reality.
This century-old revelation has prompted me and others to assert: there is no objective reality. This isn’t a new idea, mind you. For nearly a century, scientists have been wrestling with the implications of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, which both in their own way suggest that our long-held notion of objectivity is flawed, even outdated. Yet, despite these insights, we continue to cling to the idea of an objective reality.
This essay is a call to action. It’s time we stop ignoring the truths that quantum mechanics and relativity have been telling us for decades and let go of the idea of an objective reality. It’s time to accept that reality, as it appears to the observer, is all that exists — the concept of an ‘objective’ reality devoid of observation is fundamentally flawed. If we now, after 100 years of stalling, could finally accept this, we might just find a way to reconcile physical reality with consciousness, making the so-called “hard problem of consciousness” disappear into thin air, because it was always an artifact of a misunderstanding of reality. So, let’s dig in and see what such a world might look like.
The Problem
Science operates on the premise of observable facts. If you drop an apple, it falls. This action is true for everyone, everywhere, and every time — or so we believed. For many centuries, this concept was easy to accept because the world seemed to function consistently for all observers. If I drop an apple, you see it fall just as I do. This consensus reality allowed us to create a common understanding of the world, one based on “objective” measurements.
Actually this idea of objectivity should always have seemed weird to us. We have build an entire system of physical science that hangs in thin air, unless anchored to an observer. As I have written about before, the laws of physics are entirely circular. All the concepts of physics are tied together in a huge mathematical framework, but the concepts are not connected to anything else, except by their reference to the observer.
- Searching for the Hawking’s Fire — The Circular Nature of Physics
- The Single Subject: Exploring Connectedness in Physics and Consciousness
So we should have known all along that objectivity was a flawed idea, but we didn’t really, until idea began to crumble with the advent of quantum mechanics. This branch of physics disrupted the notion that all observers experience the same reality. Instead, it showed that the observer — the subject — plays a central role in how reality presents itself.
In the quantum realm, particles can be in multiple places at the same time until observed, at which point they snap into a definitive state. The observer’s act of measurement influences the behavior of these particles. This rattled the already shaky foundation of the concept of an objective reality.
To put it another way, quantum mechanics suggests that reality doesn’t even exist in a definitive state independent of observation. It’s as if the act of observation brings reality into existence. This isn’t to say that observation creates reality, which is a common misconception. Rather, the act of observation reveals a version of reality that is unique to the observer.
If we take this perspective, it’s easy to see that objective reality doesn’t exist. There’s no single, definitive way the world is. Instead, what we consider as reality is deeply tied to our observation of it.
Despite the evidence from quantum mechanics and relativity theory, many of us still stubbornly cling to the outdated notion of an objective reality. We find comfort in the belief that the world exists in a particular way, independent of our perception. Yet this concept is not only unfounded but also a hindrance to our understanding of the universe.
The notion of objectivity has had a good run, but it’s high time we retire it. It’s ill-suited for the world quantum mechanics and relativity describe. In clinging to it, we’re trying to hold on to a world that doesn’t exist — a world that is independent of observers. It’s time to accept that reality is not something ‘out there’ but rather something that arises from our interactions with the world.
A False Dichotomy
Since the days of Galileo, mathematics has been our go-to language for describing the world around us. Mathematical modeling has paved the way for numerous scientific advancements and technological breakthroughs. It’s an approach that has served humanity well and continues to do so. However, there is an underlying presumption in this approach that is worth looking at.
We have become accustomed to the idea that the equations we use in science describe an objective reality. But since I did my best to shoot down the idea of objectivity earlier, this isn’t what quantum mechanics and relativity says. Reality is not objective; it’s observer-dependent. It doesn’t exist out there, independent of us; rather, it finds its form when we observe it.
So, should we toss out the equations? Not at all. These mathematical models have proved their worth time and again. They provide us with a powerful tool to predict and manipulate the world around us. However, we must recognize that these equations do not describe an objective reality. Instead, they capture how reality appears to the observer.
I hope to have convinced you that the notion that there is an objective world independent of the observer is just plain wrong. But this means that the subjective, too, isn’t what we thought it to be. It’s not a world of personal whims and biases, but rather an observer-dependent reality informed by the rigorous mathematical models of physics.
This realization leaves no room for certain prevalent philosophies of mind that try to explain away consciousness as an illusion. These perspectives argue that we are merely hallucinating our experiences, that there is no conscious observer. But this view is at odds with the implications of reality being defined only in relation to the subjective observer. If we really believe that that there are no conscious observers, then there cannot be any reality either.
The picture that illusionism creates is my mind is that of an elaborate set of equations anchored to nothing but itself floating away and disappearing into thin air.
There are others who propose maintaining a clear line between the subjective and objective realms formulated as various flavors of dualism. But this, too, is misguided. If there’s no objective reality, there’s no need to create a dichotomy with the subjective. The world we experience is neither objective nor subjective. It’s an observer-dependent reality that happens to be well captured by our mathematical models. This reality exists not in spite of us but because of us. It’s time we recognize this and discard the false dichotomy of the objective versus the subjective.
Redefining Reality
Our understanding of reality needs a complete overhaul. Rather than viewing it as a fixed, external stage upon which events play out, we should consider it as a dynamic interplay between observers and their environment. Reality, in this view, doesn’t reside out there, independent of us. Instead, reality is our interactions with the world, shaped and defined by our observations. Reality is nothing but those interactions between subjects.
This shift in perspective brings the observer — the subject — to the forefront and integrates it with the traditionally objective world. If the observer’s role is crucial in determining reality, then consciousness, as the seat of observation, can’t be a mere byproduct of physical processes. Instead, consciousness is fundamental to the nature of reality itself.
With the demise of an objective world, the subjective realm of consciousness steps out of the shadows and into the spotlight. Consciousness isn’t something that happens within reality; it is integral to the very fabric of reality. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that reality happens within consciousness. This shift has profound implications for our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.
I don’t think idealism is wrong. But I do think that it is a very odd way to formulate something that can be expressed much simpler
This could be considered a flavor of the idealist view in philosophy. I don’t think idealism is wrong. But I do think that it is a very odd way to formulate something that can be expressed much simpler; there is nothing but observers and their interactions in existence. The world out there does in fact exist, but it consists entirely of observers that can interact with each other through a set of principles and rules that we call physics and that we have managed to express very well in a system of mathematical equations. This is, of course, the philosophical view known as panpsychism, and I think it is the only view that makes sense (with idealism being an acceptable alternative, as long as we acknowledges that it expresses the same thing using different words.)
I accept that I might not have convinced you to embrace panpsychism. It also took me a while to see that there is no simpler, no better, alternative to understand reality.
But no matter which view you lean towards, I hope to at least have convinced you that the shift towards a unified, observer-dependent reality forces us to let go — once and for all — of the outdated an unscientific ideas of the objective and the subjective.
I hope to at least have convinced you that the shift towards a unified, observer-dependent reality forces us to let go — once and for all — of the outdated an unscientific ideas of the objective and the subjective.
