Consciousness and The Theory of Everything

Two big topics in science today are finding a theory of everything (quantum fields? strings? other?) and understanding the nature of consciousness (purely material? transcendent? a new fundamental physical force?)

Suppose we found a theory of everything. In quantum mechanics, the wave function is fundamental. The wave function contains and determines all that can be said of something (at least, at the physical level; the wave function doesn’t tell us when something is morally right or aesthetically pleasing).
A theory of everything would, presumedly, have one or more absolutely fundamental entities, be they some form of matter, energy, mathematical concept, or something else. Let’s suppose we found a theory of everything and it had only one absolutely fundamental entity. We’ll call it “the ultimate ground of existence.”

Now, we turn to consciousness. Some scientists and philosophers believe consciousness derives from matter as we currently understand it, and try to explain consciousness in terms of brain function. Others take an opposing view: that consciousness cannot be explained by today’s physics. One opposing view accepts that consciousness is purely physical but hopes one day our physics can explain it. Another opposing view says that not only does consciousness transcend the universe, but it also contains the universe, is more fundamental than the universe—in other words, this view sees as consciousness is the ultimate ground of existence.

Of course, it may be the case that there are multiple ultimate grounds of existence. If atoms could not be split, we’d have about ninety-six ultimate grounds of existence. All that is required of multiple grounds of existence is that no one of them be derivable from the others, because if it can, it’s not ultimate. Math note: This is similar to the idea of a linearly independent set of vectors in linear algebra. No single vector can be derived from a linear combination of the others.

It’s tempting to suggest that the two ultimate ground of existence we’ve described are actually one and the same. This would say that as we look down to the foundation of the universe and at the same time look down to the foundation of our awareness, our consciousness, we are looking down to the same thing. This view is similar to a philosophical stance called “neutral monism.”

Consequences follow from the view that two ultimate ground of existence we’ve described are actually one and the same. One consequence is that we did not come into the universe, as when an immortal soul joins a body, but rather we came out of it. So, the universe is our mother and our father. It’s that in which I live and move and have my being. This, perhaps, is the intuition which underlies the pseudo-science of astrology. If astrology were true, then the planets and stars affect our personality. The nature of the universe impacts our deepest self.

Another consequence is that as we go deeper and deeper into consciousness—meditating or contemplating—we get closer to the All, the One, the Ultimate Ground of Existence. Another consequence: when we are at our deepest conscious level, we are closest to God. Another: at our deepest level, we are akin to God. If God and human meet, that is where they meet. Lastly, when we die, we return to the universe, our mother and father. Indeed, as we’re dying, we are being held in the arms of our parents, as we re-merge.

Of course, no claim is made that the above arguments prove anything. It’s just some thoughts which may or may not be true.