Physics Must Evolve Beyond the Physical


IDEAS AND OPINION

Physics Must Evolve Beyond the Physical

Deepak Chopra1

Received: 23 July 2018 /Accepted: 27 March 2019 /Published online: 29 April 2019
# The Author(s) 2019

Abstract
Contemporary physics finds itself pondering questions about mind and consciousness, an uncomfortable area for theorists. But
historically, key figures at the founding of quantum theory assumed that reality was composed of two parts, mind and matter,
which interacted with each other according to some new laws that they specified. This departure from the prior (classical-
physicalist) assumption that mind was a mere side effect of brain activity was such a startling proposal that it basically split
physics in two, with one camp insisting that mind will ultimately be explained via physical processes in the brain and the other
camp embracing mind as innate in creation and the key to understanding reality in its completeness. Henry Stapp made important
contributions toward a coherent explanation by advocating John von Neumann’s orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics.
von Neumann postulated that at its basis, quantum mechanics requires both a psychological and physical component. He was left,
however, with a dualist view in which the psychological and physical aspects of QM remained unresolved. In this article, the
relevant issues are laid out with the aim of finding a nondual explanation that allows mind and matter to exist as features of the
same universal consciousness, in the hope that the critical insights of Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, and Stapp
will be recognized and valued, with the aim of an expanded physics that goes beyond physicalist dogma.

Keywords Stapp . Quantum reality . Linde . von Neumann . Orthodox interpretation . Consciousness

Modern physics speaks in the language of advanced mathe-
matics, which makes it nearly impossible for an outsider to
penetrate the discussion over vital issues at the heart of sci-
ence. But mathematics in this case is not pure. It serves as an
instrument for elucidating concepts about reality. If concepts
are the primary stuff of science—I think we would all agree
that this is true—then a certain nervousness begins to creep in.
Concepts are a form of mental activity, and as soon as mind
enters the picture, physics finds itself peering over the fence
into the nonphysical.

The absolute need to transcend physical explanations
brought me into contact with Henry Stapp a few years ago,
and once we discovered that we shared a sense of urgency on
the subject, we wrote a blog article, Is a Mind Element Needed
to Interpret Quantum Mechanics? In the last century, theoret-
ical physics has come to the realization that the world Bout
there^ is disjointed from the mental world Bin here.^ The

separation was reinforced by erecting a barrier between solid,
concrete physical objects that can be explored objectively
(through data collection, measurement, and experimentation)
and the fickle, unstable, unreliable world of subjectivity.

Prof. Stapp has long argued that mind is essential for grasp-
ing not just quantum reality but reality as a whole. To summa-
rize a few key points in our joint article, the founders of quan-
tum theory assumed that reality was composed of two parts,
mind and matter, which interacted with each other according
to some new laws that they specified. This departure from the
prior (classical-physicalist) assumption that mind was a mere
side-effect of brain activity was such a startling proposal that it
basically split physics in two, with one camp (the physicalists)
insisting that matter alone, plus an element of quantum
chance, determines every physical property of the universe,
and the other camp embracing mind as the key to certain
otherwise unexplained mysteries.

For several decades now, the first physicalist approach has
been ascendant in the minds of many working physicists. But
the founders of quantum mechanics were ambitious enough to
want an explanation for the wholeness of reality. Some dom-
inant figures, among them Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger,
and Werner Heisenberg, took a conceptual leap into the

* Deepak Chopra
carolyn@chopra.com

1 The Chopra Foundation, Carlsbad, CA, USA

Activitas Nervosa Superior (2019) 61:126–129
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00042-3

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s41470-019-00042-3&domain=pdf
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5817-3551
mailto:carolyn@chopra.com


nonphysical, advocating that consciousness was an irreducible
aspect of creation. Here’s a sample of their public statements:

From Planck, speaking to a reporter from The Observer
newspaper in 1931: BI regard consciousness as fundamental.
I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, ev-
erything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.^
From Schrödinger’s 1944 book, What Is Life?:
BConsciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms.
For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be
accounted for in terms of anything else.^ From Heisenberg,
delivering a direct assault on conventional scientific thinking:
BThe atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real;
they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than
one of things or facts.^

The intention behind these statements was scientific, in-
deed the ultimate in scientific thinking. As a mode of reduc-
tionism, physics in the early twentieth century had made a
breakthrough into the substratum of the quantum. In their
own minds, Planck, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg were going
to an even more fundamental level of nature, following the
implications of quantum behavior. If this was the intention, it
did not bear fruit. The immediate effect, in fact, was to damage
their reputations. They were accused of wandering into meta-
physics, still a term of denigration in science. They had placed
mind before matter, which if taken seriously would have
undermined the whole scheme of Bthings^ and Bfacts^ that
Heisenberg repudiated. Working physics remained firmly em-
bedded in things and facts, and even though quantum theory
backed up Heisenberg’s depiction of pure potentiality (i.e., the
wave function) and unpredictability at the core of nature, no-
body saw their houses, cars, and labs vanishing into swirling
quantum soup. With the classical world intact, business
proceeded as usual.

So matters stood, with the mainstream of physics occupied
with Bthings^ and Bfacts,^ while on the fringes, the issue of mind
was an exotic preoccupation of the few. But some mainstream
theorists are grappling with the insight that consciousness cannot
be left out of any valid explanation of nature as a whole. In a
1998 paper titled, with characteristically sweeping ambition,
Universe, Life, Consciousness, the noted Russian-American
physicist Andrei Linde rethought the relationship between phys-
ics and reality. BAccording to standard materialistic doctrine,^
Linde asserted, Bconsciousness … plays a secondary, subservient
role, being considered just a function of matter and a tool for the
description of the truly existing material world.^

But matter is not actually the starting point of science, Linde
pointed out. The real starting point is our perceptions, which we
take to be trustworthy. Any model of reality that regards the
world Bout there^ as a given is mistaken. What we describe as
the world Bout there^ is a substitute for perception, and therefore
only theoretical, while perception itself, without a doubt, is real to
us. In other words, Linde was telling his fellow scientists that

they had reversed the order of things by believing that theory was
more trustworthy than direct experience. BThe [materialistic] the-
ory is so successful that we almost never think about its limita-
tions until we must address some really deep issues, which do not
fit into our model of reality.^

Those Breally deep issues^ skirt metaphysics, which re-
mains anathema to physicists. One way to frame the discus-
sion is through what Stapp and others have labeled the Bmind-
like^ behavior of the physical world. In what way does the
universe display mind-like behavior? To return to the points
made in the article co-written with Stapp, the basic features of
the evolving universe that bring the action of mind into play
are choices.

For anything to actually Bhappen^ in quantum mechanics,
two things have to occur. First, a person has to ask a yes/no
question about whether they will have a certain experience or
not, then nature has to choose the answer to their question, yes
or no. So, there are two choices being made, one is the choice
of the question being asked, and the second is the choice of the
answer being given.

The mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics is built
around these paired choices of questions and answers. The an-
swer to the posed question is specified by the famous quantum
random choice. But how is the question chosen? The answer is
Bby the mind of an observing agent, on the basis of the perceived
needs of that organism.^ Thus, the key choices that play an
essential role in the evolution of the universe come from mind.

Freeman Dyson, who has been among the most eloquent
and outspoken physicists on the matter, wrote in support of the
same idea, BMatter in quantum mechanics is not an inert sub-
stance, but an active agent, constantly making choices be-
tween alternate possibilities–It appears that mind, as manifest-
ed by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent
in every electron.^

Before the quantum revolution, billiard balls were often used
as examples in physics because they neatly illustrate the laws of
motion set down by Newton. Quantum mechanics replaced the
table of billiard balls by a table filled with probability distribu-
tions of particles. But probability distributions of particles are not
the same as real distributions of particles. They are in some sense
imaginary. They can be distributions existing in the imaginations
or minds of human beings. The same holds for anything com-
posed of elementary particles—as Hans Peter Durr, the former
director of the Max Planck Institute declared, BMatter is not made
of matter.^ Rather, matter is a human construct, an interpretation
of human perceptual activity. In any case, the notion of the prob-
ability distribution of particles seems to exist in a mind. But in
quantum theory, the basic Bmaterial^ aspects of nature are essen-
tially just these probability distributions. Consequently, both the
mind-like and matter-like aspects of nature seem to be essentially
mind-like.

Quantum mechanics, as understood by its founders, shifted
the foundations of physical science from what is described in

Act Nerv Super (2019) 61:126–129 127



physical terms (i.e., numbers attached to a space-time point) to
our human experiences pertaining to such properties. The ob-
server was no longer cut off from the observation. The
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) is in
some sense dualistic, because it contained two parts: one part
described in psychological/mental terms and another part de-
scribed in physical/materialistic terms. In the quantum de-
scription of what is happening, these two parts are causally
entwined: the observer participates in the effects upon the
physical world that they are observing.

WhereasNewton’sphysical universe wasanactualBthing,^ in
QM, the physical aspect represents a mere Bpotentiality^ for what
can become actual. The universe does not behave like material
stuff. There are abrupt jumps, leaps, and changes of state at the
heartofquantumbehavior.Thesesuddenresponsestoincrements
in knowledge make the material aspect more mind-like than mat-
ter-like. Hence, both the Bmaterial^ part and the Bmental^ part are
mind-like in character.

I will not detail Stapp’s advocacy of the orthodox interpreta-
tion of quantum mechanics devised by the brilliant Hungarian-
American theorist John von Neumann (for anyone interested, a
complete explanation is contained in our article, which is easily
found online). But the fact that the known laws for the physical
state of the particles cannot explain how they behave is critical
here. Something beyond the physical state is involved, asserts
von Neumann and Stapp, echoing a remark made decades earlier
by Heisenberg: BWhat we observe is not nature itself, but nature
exposed to our method of questioning.^

The notion of a participatory universe, associated with the
famous Princeton physicist John Archibald Wheeler, holds
great appeal. It accords with our subjective feelings. We do
not feel like children with our noses pressed against the bake-
shop window. We feel like characters woven into the fabric of
life. Is this actually a viable opening for a new conception of
reality? At the conceptual level, science is stuck with the de-
mon of dualism, in that pure physicalism cannot explain mind,
and mind seems too far removed from the physical universe to
be its source.

The horizon of a new physics is just here, in overcoming
duality, finding a unified explanation for matter and mind. Von
Neumann, like his predecessors who took consciousness seri-
ously, was left with dualism in the end, since the psycholog-
ical and physical aspects of quantum mechanics interacted in
some complex way but were not reducible to the same funda-
mental Bstuff.^ In philosophy, the typical term for a unified
conception of reality is monism. In modern cosmology, there
is a trend toward monism that hybridizes mind and matter.
Panpsychism, for example, which imparts consciousness or
perhaps the seeds of consciousness, in all material things, is
an attempt at a monistic explanation.

But these attempts are almost always motivated by an agen-
da, to maintain the primacy of the physical world. To say that
an atom, a quark, a crystal, or a galaxy has consciousness

actually explains nothing. One is simply restating the obser-
vation that the universe displays mind-like behavior. The es-
sential issuer of choice, as Stapp states it, remains, only this
time it can be writ large. The choice is between two explana-
tions that are irreconcilable. Either mind created matter or vice
versa. Science has lived for a long time with the assumption
that the brain creates mind as a kind of byproduct the way a
bonfire throws off heat. But this assumption has never been
proven. The brain certainly displays physical activity that par-
allels thinking, feeling, and perceiving, but that proves
nothing—a piano’s keys and hammers move when Mozart is
being played on it, but that does not mean the piano composed
the music. In essence, neuroscience has adopted the same
fallacious explanation. This does not hide the bald fact, how-
ever, that no physicalist has ever located the point at which
common atoms of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen
learned to think.

The other choice, which faces anyone who wants to make
consciousness the primary Bstuff^ of creation, is to show how
mind makes matter appear. Surprisingly, this alternative is by
far the stronger. When we have a thought, electrical and chem-
ical impulses course through the brain and central nervous
system. At the level of the synapse, the gap between two nerve
endings, there is the creation of intermittent electrical charges
and molecules of neurotransmitters. These are not created ran-
domly; they express in physical coding a mental event. But
beyond this obvious example of mind over matter, the very
fact that we perceive the physical world Bout there^ is entirely
dependent upon mind, and the means by which this transfor-
mation occurs remains a mystery.

The most basic natural phenomena do not exist outside our
experience of them. For example, photons are not visible or
bright. Their invisible status is altered only by contact with the
retina at the back of the eye and the signals it sends along the
optic nerve. On their journey to the visual cortex, these signals
are also not visible, pictorial, or bright. The environment of the
brain is dark, moist, and squishy. Physicalists can point out
that a certain level of electromagnetic emission in neural tissue
is analogous to light, but this does nothing to explain how one
set of neural signals turns into the Grand Canyon and another
the face of a friend, or anything else. There are no qualities of
the physical world—through sight, sound, touch, taste, and
smell—that are not mental artifacts.

A skeptic can argue that this transformation of raw neural sig-
nals intotheappearanceof thevisibleworldis abrainprocess,not
a mental one, but the argument does not hold water, because it
traces back to the same dead end as all physicalist explanations: it
is just as improbable that carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen
atoms learned to see as to think.

But there is another fact that has not been addressed, and it
goes to the heart of the matter. Reality cannot be modeled, which
is to say that no matter how convincing any theory is, something
will be left out. Physicalism for all intents and purposes leaves

128 Act Nerv Super (2019) 61:126–129



out mind. But the problem is far more universal. Models are only
right about what they include and are inevitably wrong about
what they exclude (I am simplifying but I hope not
misrepresenting what Gödel’s theorems proved logically).

To understand reality without a model, there is only one pos-
sibility: It must be experienced. This, at the bottom, is what
everyone I have quoted has been saying. Just as there is no model
for reality, there is no model for consciousness. If a super-hyper-
brain scan in the future could be attached to a poet’s head as he
wrote a sonnet or a composer as he wrote a symphony, it could
not replicate the creative process that converts daily brain activity
into something beautiful, profound, and meaningful.
Consciousness allows us to create concepts about the world,
but consciousness itself is inconceivable.

Creativity is the emergence of something out of nothing. We
marvel when the creative act produces Shakespeare’s plays and
Beethoven’s symphonies, but Bsomething out of nothing^ is a
critical issue in contemporary physics. What is causing the cur-
rent unease among the Bthings^ and Bfacts^ mainstream scien-
tists is quite astonishing. Empiricism has dwindled to the
vanishing point. The pre-created state of the universe can only
be conjectured mathematically, and as the late Stephen Hawking
was at pains to point out in his last years, there is a discrepancy
between theory and reality in the absence of empirical evidence.

We cannot conceive in non-mathematical thought of what
came before time because the question itself is invalid—Bbefore^
only has meaning after time appeared on the scene. Likewise, we
cannot conceptualize, outside advanced mathematics, what lies
outside space—Boutside^ has meaning only after space appears.
Since the human brain evolved through the workings of space,
time, matter, and energy, the limits of mental concepts are real.

To experience reality without conceptual models is not a futile
project; however, I would offer the possibility that there is a
natural science of consciousness. In this science, what we now
label the universe can be re-imagined as a mode of conscious-
ness, seamlessly woven into the other modes that consciousness
takes, such as reason, emotion, perception, interpretation, behav-
ior, the working of nature across the span of evolution, and so on.
That these modes of consciousness are viewed from a specific
locality—the human viewpoint—means that in a very real sense,
we live in a human universe.

This is not a choice. It is forced upon us by the fact that we are
a species of consciousness different and unique, pursuing our
own evolutionary track. Cave paintings emerged, for example,
around 40,000 years ago, predating the accepted date for the
appearance of the modern human brain around 20,000 years
ago. The first artifacts that can be called humanoid sculptures
date back between 200,000 and 700,000 years ago. Primitive
toolmaking may extend as far back as our hominid ancestors
more than a million years ago. We can dig up and collect visible
evidence, but what is really at work here, what is evolving over
time, is the unfoldment of the species of consciousness we iden-
tify with as Homo sapiens.

Once evolution is founded upon the ground state of con-
sciousness, there is a level playing field between Bmind^ and
Bmind-like.^ It is no longer necessary to argue by analogy. The
existence of mind is irrefutable and rests on far more solid ground
than particles, which are human conceptions constructed from
the capacities of the human brain with all its limitations. If I had
to pick one word for the process that causes creation to appear, it
would be reification. To reify is to take an idea and make it
physical. We do it all the time. The Wright brothers’ first airplane
reified the idea of flying. If I jump at the sound of a car
backfiring, my jolt of fear is reified into cortisol coursing through
my bloodstream.

Reification closes the circle drawn by the quantum pio-
neers who dematerialized the physical universe. Now we
can see how to bring it back again. Consciousness reifies
whatever it chooses to make flesh. The creative act is un-
bounded, because consciousness is the observer and observed,
the seer and the seen, and the experiencer and the experienced.
Since science and technology cannot be stopped, reification is
shaping our future. We would do a much better job, however,
if we took responsibility for the human universe. Reality is not
happening to us; it is a creative process that we materialize out
of the invisible stuff of consciousness.

The demon of duality has done much mischief. We are
entangled in the divisiveness described by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

Things are in the saddle,
And ride mankind.
There are two laws discrete,
Not reconciled—.
Law for man, and law for thing …
I have overstepped my brief, to describe a specific interpreta-

tion of quantum mechanics. But nothing mechanical will explain
reality or ourselves or how to get out of our many predicaments.
Consciousness answers all of these riddles, and even if we cannot
see where the trail leads, we certainly know where it begins.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distri-
bution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Deepak Chopra MD, FACP, founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-
founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing, is a world-renowned pio-
neer in integrative medicine and personal transformation, and is Board
Certified in Internal Medicine, Endocrinology and Metabolism. He is a
Fellow of the American College of Physicians and a member of the
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Chopra is the author
of more than 85 books translated into over 43 languages, including nu-
merous New York Times bestsellers.www.deepakchopra.com

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Act Nerv Super (2019) 61:126–129 129

http://www.deepakchopra.com/

	Physics Must Evolve Beyond the Physical
	Abstract