What’s Reality Like?

Should we consider reality a collection of particles, waves, objects, or something more elusive, like experiences, sensations, and ideas? Varying approaches have tried to pin down the answer, from materialist notions that everything is matter, to spiritual conceptions of a universal consciousness from which everything comes about. Each approach contributes something unique, yet for the longest time these disparate conceptions have rarely connected up with each other.

In the materialist framework, reality consists of physical objects such as atoms and their interactions. The universe is vast, with matter and energy as the only realities. In this view, consciousness and experience are byproducts—mere epiphenomena—of the physical world. Time is often seen as a fourth dimension, spatialized and static, part of the Einsteinian “block universe” where the past, present, and future coexist without any inherent flow. The subjective experience of such a flow may be considered illusory. A subtle determinism is implied since every moment is a direct consequence of previous states.

In rationalist approaches, reality is structured by natural laws or abstract principles, often rooted in a rational order. The universe has an underlying logic or set of forms that govern it, and everything we perceive manifests these sensible forms. If it takes a religious or spiritual bent, this view might consider the chain of events following a more hidden divine plan where everything works towards a single destination. This plan may act as the transcendental guarantor of meaning amidst the seeming ups and downs of life.

Monism (also absolute idealism) posits that all reality is one. Everything is a manifestation of a single unitary consciousness. The myriad forms we experience can be understood as configurations within this medium. A common metaphor is the idea of each “thing” being like a wave on the surface of the ocean. From one perspective the wave is separate, but from the absolute perspective, it is all just the ocean. In this context, space and time can be seen as illusory or secondary, a mental construction arising from our experience rather than an inherent feature of the world.

Process philosophy treats reality as comprised of events giving dynamism and change a central role. Objects as we see them in daily life such as cups or chairs are considered to be stabilized processes not actually “things.” There are strong echoes of quantum mechanics and the wave-particle duality in process thinking. For process philosophy, it’s possible for new structures, and relationships to emerge over time, including the laws of nature being subject to change. This view is most exemplified by Heraclitus’ claim that roughly, “you can’t step into the same river twice.”

It’s clear why each of these has an appeal. For the materialist, our sensory experience of the world and practical affairs find support. For the rationalist, the effectiveness of mathematical reasoning finds support as well as the possibility of realizing values like justice in the world. For the monist, the experiential dimension of reality and interconnection between individuals finds support. For process philosophy, the possibility of rupture, novelty and change find support. A collaborative effort to describe reality between these positions would need to capture the substantial, structural, relational and temporal dimensions of the reality.

Many are hesitant to pin this down definitively and rightfully so, but let’s suppose we could say what reality was like in a way that was conversant with all these perspectives. In this view, reality would not be made of things, structures, relations, or even processes alone, but unfolds through all types working together. Each perspective is like a way of looking at it while emphasizing the aspects that are relevant for some purpose. There aren’t really any fixed parts, but emergent wholes which are internally differentiated and externally situated, each always more than their context. The intersection of these ideas could help advance science and human civilization in the areas of fundamental physics and post-secular meaning-making.

In fundamental physics, theorists have long been puzzled about the relationship between quantum field theory (aspects of physics having to do with microscale relations and events) and general relativity (the structure of spacetime at the macroscopic level involving large masses). This is remarkably similar to the tension between process philosophy and static conceptions of reality. If we can get clear about how these concepts relate, perhaps it would illuminate a path forward on the fundamental physics as well.

In my mind, the unification of these two scientific research programs is really as much of a philosophical one as it is an empirical one. Because to do this unification means stretching our concepts as far they will go. Our everyday experience of time suggests that it’s something that flows. And when time flows it gives us a sense of agency and meaning. But the very physics that describes this scale of reality assumes that this “time” is anything but real. In Einstein’s formulation of general relativity, time effectively falls out of the equations suggesting a kind of deterministic or frozen picture of the world.

Similarly, there is another curious tension between physics and our everyday experience. In quantum physics, our common sense view of the world as made up of objects seems to break down. Particles are said to be not really “things” but modulations within a field. And even phenomena that don’t seem to be thing-like such as light can be treated like particles. More broadly, it can be confusing how a world made up of stuff would lead to consciousness as we enjoy it. When forced to choose between the alternatives of rigorous science and the embodied experience of reality, it can feel like tough choice.

Research in this area is ongoing with various theories, such as loop quantum gravity (LQG), proposing that space is not a smooth, continuous fabric at the most fundamental level but consists of discrete, indivisible units called spin networks, described by mathematical loops. These loops represent the fundamental “atoms” of space, and changes in their connections describe spacetime dynamics, forming a kind of quantum geometry. Unlike other approaches like string theory, LQG does not assume a background spacetime; instead, spacetime emerges from the interactions of these fundamental loops. This quantization prevents the controversial idea of singularities like the Big Bang in cosmological models from forming and parsimoniously suggests the possibility of a quantum bounce instead of the classical singularity.

This view of reality, with events as its fundamental constituents, bridges the gap between the scientific and manifest images of the world. It acknowledges that both physical phenomena and conscious experience are natural and interconnected through the fabric of time. This conception provides a basis for a deeper understanding of fundamental physics and offers an existential framework that balances acceptance of the past with empowerment to shape the future.

In the following sections, we will explore the implications of unification in physics with our everyday experience and our relationship to meaning. We address the concept of quantum gravity which is an effort to bridge the two physical worlds as well as the so called “hard problem of consciousness” and the crisis of meaning in a post-scientific world. This exploration suggests that efforts at unification may help us move beyond deterministic fatalism, naive idealism, spiritual detachment or excessive striving, allowing us to engage meaningfully with our lives by embracing the past, living fully in the present, and owning the future.

Formulations and Expressions of Reality

The framework presented here attempts to capture the strengths of these conceptions while ameliorating their limitations by considering certain formulations as expressive units of reality. It’s an attempt to attend both to its formation and fluctuation or both its being and becoming. They are substantial, structured, relational and extended in time. They are also internally differentiated, externally situated.

Some examples of such formulations are objects, structures, relationships and events. Events here are understood as processes, not things; time is the real medium within which the physical and the experiential emerge. There are maps across the terrain with events turning into objects turning into relationships fluidly. This means that time is fundamental, not secondary or illusory. Events can manifest as an objective phenomenon (in physical terms) or a subjective experience (in experiential terms). Hence, the physical and the experiential are nondual.

The conception of reality as processual yet continuous implies that the objects of physical reality can be understood as stabilized processes, allowing them to perdure in time. Similarly, in phenomenology, objects are understood as relational and context-dependent phenomena that arise within the field of experience. Just as particles are excitations in a quantum field, experiences are modulations or qualifications of a field of awareness. This analogy doesn’t reduce one vocabulary to the other but instead creates a bridge between the rigorous, mathematical descriptions of physics and phenomenology’s direct, descriptive insights. Each provides a complementary view of the same fundamental reality.

With smooth unfoldings as fundamental to the expression of reality, we also arrive at a unified conception of physical and experiential time. The present is where aspects of the past can be actualized, but creatively, allowing the future to be open—a field of possibilities that can be shaped but never entirely determined in advance. The “logic” of reality is understood not as something outside of ourselves that we intuit and surrender to but as something we participate in through our practical engagement with the world. Further, the “laws of nature” are not fixed but themselves unfolding throughout cosmological time.

Ruptures can happen, but they are not metaphysically primary. They are intensifications—sharp turns in a continuous terrain, not breaks in reality itself. Trauma doesn’t define the whole story. Transformation doesn’t require total destruction. Identity can endure across change. It changes not by resisting difference, but by moving with it.

Implications for Fundamental Physics—Time as the Key to Quantum Gravity

This view offers a way to reconcile the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in fundamental physics. General relativity describes a universe where time is part of a four-dimensional spacetime fabric—a block universe where all events are set and unchanging. In contrast, quantum mechanics deals with probabilities, superpositions, and the indeterminacy of events. The difficulty has been merging these two frameworks without sacrificing the flow of time, which seems essential for understanding quantum events.

Taking time as fundamental, this process ontology suggests that space is an emergent property arising from a more profound temporality. This aligns with approaches to quantum gravity that see time as a dynamic, unfolding reality, not a dimension like space. Here, the present is real and evolving, with the past influencing but not determining the future, allowing the uncertainty of quantum mechanics to coexist with the relativistic framework.

Research in this area is ongoing with various theories, such as loop quantum gravity (LQG), proposing that space is not a smooth, continuous fabric but consists of discrete, indivisible units called spin networks, described by mathematical loops. These loops represent the fundamental “atoms” of space, and changes in their connections describe spacetime dynamics, forming a kind of quantum geometry. Unlike other approaches like string theory, LQG does not assume a background spacetime; instead, spacetime emerges from the interactions of these fundamental loops. This quantization prevents the controversial idea of singularities like the Big Bang in cosmological models from forming and parsimoniously suggests the possibility of a quantum bounce instead of the classical singularity.

Addressing the Hard Problem of Consciousness

The hard problem of consciousness, famously articulated by philosopher David Chalmers, posits a fundamental gap between the objective descriptions of the world given by science and our subjective, first-person experience. How can the vivid world of colors, sounds, tastes, and emotions—the realm of qualia—arise from a purely physical world of neurons and particles? Solutions to this problem have been based on contrasting approaches to reality described above.

The materialist view holds that reality is fundamentally physical. Consciousness, in this framework, is often treated as an illusion—a byproduct of neural activity in the brain. The richness of first-person experience is seen as a cognitive trick, with the “real” world being the objective, measurable domain of particles and forces. From this perspective, consciousness is not fundamentally mysterious because it is not a genuine phenomenon but a byproduct of physical interactions.

In contrast, idealist monism asserts that reality is fundamentally mental—a single, unitary consciousness that appears fragmented through the illusion of separate subjects and objects. According to this view, the material world is a misperception, an illusion that emerges from deeper layers of consciousness. Here, the hard problem of consciousness dissolves because there is no gap between the physical and the mental; everything is already consciousness.

Chalmers advocates for property dualism, which, unlike Cartesian substance dualism, the subjective and objective are said to be two properties of the same underlying reality. The critical nuance is that neither is reducible to the other. He has sympathized with Russellian neutral monism, considering reality as being made up of a single substance, such as properties or events. The two become complementary with neutral monism describing the substance while property dualism describing the categories of properties.

From this perspective, the gap between the subjective and the objective is an artifact of our conceptual framework, not a fundamental division in the nature of reality. Consciousness does not emerge from matter, nor does matter emerge consciousness. Instead, matter and consciousness are ways of carving up the same underlying processes—the events that constitute reality. It may be more accurate to say that, for example, the human body and brain emerge from more basic materiality such as carbon based molecules and other materials, while human conditioned awareness emerges from a more unified field of awareness, but both this matter and awareness are simultaneously emergent properties of the processual nature of reality.

The sense of perspective, the experience of “being here now” with a particular vantage point, is as much a part of the world’s structure as mass or charge. This redefines the problem of accounting for consciousness, not as a gap between mind and matter but as a relationship within the unfolding of events, where abstraction and context determine how we describe reality.

Implications for Meaning-Making and Phenomenology

This view of reality also reshapes how we understand meaning, choice, and freedom. If time is fundamental and the future is genuinely open, then determinism—the idea that the future is already set—is more properly a conceptual approximation which can only apply to certain aspects of reality under certain circumstances. Human behavior, being complex, could gesture toward a much more empowered sense of autonomy than say planets in motion. This has profound implications for how we engage with life.

Our actions genuinely matter because they influence the future in a non-determined albeit constrained way. The past is a trace in the present whose meaning is still open, rendering the future as a space of possibilities shaped by what we do now. Living in the present is not about transcending time or denying change but recognizing that the present moment is where the future is shaped. Accepting the past allows us to engage with what is real and not what “might have been,” empowering us to make choices that resonate with our deepest values.

Some spiritual attempts to achieve a timeless state of the “eternal now,” while emphasizing the significance of the present, often risk creating a detachment that can lead to passivity. By acknowledging the natural flow of time, we ground ourselves in the immediacy of existence without falling into nihilism or complacency. Still, the traditions have explored and peeled back the deepest layers of experience to help aspirants achieve profound nondual states of awareness that enrich our understanding of the experiential dimension of reality. In this context, accessing this experiential field can be reinterpreted as a more profound form of engagement with the world rather than a retreat from it.

A Vision of Reality as Dynamic and Empowering

This view of reality, with events as its fundamental constituents, bridges the gap between the scientific and manifest images of the world. It acknowledges that both physical phenomena and conscious experience are natural and interconnected through the fabric of time. This conception provides a basis for a deeper understanding of fundamental physics and offers an existential framework that balances acceptance of the past with empowerment to shape the future.

Seeing reality as a meta-process that facilitates the dynamic interplay of events gives us a richer, more nuanced understanding of our place in the universe. It’s a vision that honors the mysteries of quantum mechanics, the majesty of cosmic evolution, and the immediacy of human experience—all woven together by the medium of time. This is the medium of reality—not things, but processes, not stasis, but change—a world where the dance of quanta and qualia unfolds in the ever-moving flow of time.

Further Reading

1. The Analysis of Mind by Bertrand Russell. In this work, Russell outlines his view of neutral monism, the idea that the fundamental constituents of reality are neither exclusively mental nor physical but something neutral that can give rise to both. He explores the nature of mind, perception, and the relationship between consciousness and the external world.
2. Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead. Whitehead’s seminal text in process philosophy offers a comprehensive metaphysical framework where reality is seen as a series of interconnected events or processes rather than static substances, emphasizing the creative and dynamic nature of the universe.
3. Being and Time by Martin Heidegger. Heidegger’s magnum opus delves into the nature of Being, exploring how human existence (Dasein) relates to time, authenticity, and the world. He emphasizes the temporality of human life, the nature of existence, and introduces concepts like being-in-the-world and care, establishing the foundations of existential-phenomenology.
4. The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time by Lee Smolin and Roberto Mangabeira Unger. Smolin and Unger challenge the notion of a timeless multiverse, arguing for a single, evolving universe where time is real and fundamental. They propose that the laws of physics are not eternal but change over time, making the universe an evolving process with a history.
5. Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin. In this accessible book, Smolin outlines three significant approaches to unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, including Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). He provides an overview of the challenges in modern physics and explains why he believes spacetime must be quantized, discussing the implications for the nature of reality.
6. The World and Us by Roberto Mangabeira Unger. Unger posits that the traditional scientific worldview—which treats the universe as governed by unchanging, timeless laws—misrepresents reality’s dynamic and evolving nature. He proposes a more pragmatic and transformative approach, where humans actively participate in unfolding the cosmos. This perspective highlights the importance of human creativity, agency, and social transformation, suggesting that we are not passive observers of a deterministic universe but contributors to the ongoing evolution of reality itself.
7. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory by David Chalmers. Chalmers tackles the hard problem of consciousness, which is the challenge of explaining why and how subjective experiences arise from physical processes. He explores concepts like property dualism and panpsychism, questioning whether current scientific paradigms can fully explain the mind and proposing a potential framework for understanding consciousness.
8. Phenomenology of Perception by Maurice Merleu-Ponty. Merleau-Ponty explores the nature of perception as a fundamentally embodied and relational experience. He argues that perception is not a detached, purely intellectual act but is deeply rooted in the body’s interaction with the world. He rejects the traditional mind-body dualism, emphasizing that the body is not just an object in the world but a lived body (corps vécu) that actively engages and shapes reality.
9. Creative Evolution by Henri Bergson. Bergson challenges mechanistic and deterministic views of evolution, suggesting that life evolves through unpredictable, creative adaptation that cannot be reduced to purely physical or chemical explanations. He emphasizes the importance of time and duration, seeing evolution as a continuous, qualitative process where new life forms emerge spontaneously. This perspective underscores the idea that reality is fluid and evolving, resisting any attempt to be fully captured by static concepts or deterministic laws.
10. Existential Physics by Sabine Hossenfelder. Hossenfelder, a physicist working on phenomenological quantum gravity, provides a down-to-earth, skeptical examination of the big existential questions through the lens of physics. Her emphasis is on staying within the boundaries of empirical science while acknowledging the limits of what physics can answer about meaning, purpose, and consciousness. She offers a compatibilist view of human freedom with the scientific picture of nature, a critique of the block universe theory and concepts like quantum consciousness while calling for a more grounded and scientifically informed exploration of consciousness.

Credits

This post was edited with the help of Grammarly and GPT-4o to ensure clarity, strengthen the argument and ensure grammatical accuracy. Key ideas come from many of the works cited but all errors are my own. The featured image is by Photoholgic on Unsplash.