# Could consciousness be a fundamental field? (Physics related.) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 2, 2026, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135 "2026-03-02T15:34:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/1 "2026-03-02T15:34:17Z")
[Maria Strømme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Str%C3%B8mme) published a [paper](https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Universal-consciousness-as-foundational-field-A) three months ago where she hypothesizes that consciousness is a fundamental “field,” and that everything else in the universe (matter, spacetime) emerges from this field. Which I _think_ means that, if her hypothesis is correct, the universe would not exist if humans (and just to be safe, all living organisms) did not exist. I am not a physicist or philosopher, but my initial reaction is that it’s all pseudoscience B.S. But a few things give me pause: 1. It look like she put quite a bit of work into the paper, well above-and-beyond what most crackpots would do. 2. While she’s not a theoretical physicist, she does have PhD in solid state physics, and is apparently well-known in her field of expertise. I assume she has a reputation she’d like to uphold, and hence takes her work seriously. 3. My gut feeling is that there’s a fundamental reality or structure to the universe that hasn’t been discovered, and may never be discovered. And perhaps consciousness does play a part in it. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/2 "2026-03-02T15:47:38Z")
An article about the study: > **[Consciousness as the foundation: New theory addresses nature of reality](https://phys.org/news/2025-11-consciousness-foundation-theory-nature-reality.html)** > > Consciousness is fundamental; only thereafter do time, space and matter arise. This is the starting point for a new theoretical model of the nature of reality, presented by Maria Strømme, Professor of Materials Science at Uppsala University, in AIP... Some quotes: > [@](#): > > In this model, phenomena that are now perceived as “mysterious”—such as telepathy or near-death experiences—can be explained as natural consequences of a shared field of consciousness. What is “mysterious” about telepathy or near-death experience? Nonsense isn’t mysterious. Shouldn’t we establish that these things exist before we spend our entire worldview with a new theory meant to explain them? > [@](#): > > “The texts of the major religions—such as the Bible, the Koran, and the Vedas—often describe an interconnected consciousness. Those who wrote them used metaphorical language to express insights about the nature of reality. Early quantum physicists, in turn, arrived at similar ideas using scientific methods. Now, it is time for hardcore science—that is, modern natural science—to seriously begin exploring this,” says Strømme. My “woo” klaxton is going off. ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/3 "2026-03-02T15:56:46Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > My “woo” klaxton is going off. 100%. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/4 "2026-03-02T16:45:22Z")
Perhaps you could summarize any content in that paper that has something, even barely, to do with science? The thing is, consciousness _is_ an important fundamental field; it is called psychology. This can, of course, be linked to neuroscience, philosophy, even computer science, etc., in interesting ways. However, since the universe is known to have existed before humans and other living organisms, as well as things like planets, were around, it seems the initial referees scored a bit of an own goal with this one. Applications of quantum computation to psychology might be interesting. However, if you state that a conscious being, let’s call it a “cat”, can be described by a quantum-mechanical state, that is all very well, but something tells me you will not be winning a Nobel Prize for that particular insight— I believe they already gave those out. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/5 "2026-03-02T17:03:21Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > What is “mysterious” about telepathy or near-death experience? Nonsense isn’t mysterious. Exactly. As for consciousness itself, it’s not something we can describe in precise analytical terms, but it’s clearly an emergent property of intelligence. Lower level animals have it, too, but to a lesser extent, and in particular, are fortuitously free of worry about anticipated future events, including their own demise. Humans are burdened with it. But there’s nothing mystical about consciousness. Strømme seems to have the anthropic principle backwards, and I suspect LSD may be involved! 😉 > [@Babale](#): > > My “woo” klaxton is going off. More commonly spelled “klaxon”, but yes, totally agree. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/6 "2026-03-02T17:06:27Z")
What experiment could be done to disprove the hypothesis? ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/7 "2026-03-02T17:11:30Z")
You need a hypothesis, first. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/8 "2026-03-02T17:23:22Z")
Bullshit as a Fundamental Force of Nature? No, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/9 "2026-03-02T20:23:26Z")
I don’t get it, the universe existed millions of years before any consciousness developed, how can consciousness be, then, necessary for the universe to exist?. Unless she’s trying to add some theism to the sauce? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2026, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/10 "2026-03-02T23:18:37Z")
Discourse will not permit me to post the full, complete, and detailed answer to the question. Because a post consisting entirely of “No.” would be too short. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/11 "2026-03-03T00:15:14Z")
Sounds like someone going back to the _What the Bleep Do We Know!?_ well. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/12 "2026-03-03T05:13:25Z")
Consciousness is an issue that needs to be studied more in depth, but its one of those fields that scientists are afraid to investigate for fear of ridicule. Neuroscientist Christof Koch (who used to head the Allen institute on neuroscience) supports integrated information theory, the idea that consciousness is a byproduct of information processing units that have feedback on their own functioning. > **[Exploring the mind’s mysteries with Christof Koch](https://alleninstitute.org/news/exploring-the-minds-mysteries-with-christof-koch/)** > > In his latest book, Koch navigates ‘the sheer wonder and miracle of existence and that we are conscious at all.’ I’ve glanced at some papers claiming consciousness may be an intrinsic property of electromagnetic fields. People way smarter than me are studying these things, I have no idea what’s correct or not. But fundamentally, it feels like we are debating how antibiotics work with the science of 1830. We have a lot to learn about neuroscience. Add in all the ridicule for anyone looking outside of certain parameters reducing incentives to study the field, and it’ll likely be decades before we know for sure. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/13 "2026-03-03T05:53:33Z")
It is true that people are ultimately composed of fundamental particles, but that is not the place to begin studying consciousness as an abstract any more than it is for predicting cyclones. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/14 "2026-03-03T17:54:57Z")
I’m a theoretical physicist who’s published on topics in the philosophy of mind. I’m quite open to unorthodox approaches, indeed I’m the author of a few, and I’m generally of the opinion that we need something out of the mainstream to make progress on consciousness. That paper is hot garbage. Not only do I not understand how it ever passed peer review—in what I would’ve thought to be an at least semi-decent physics journal—I don’t even understand how it passed by the editor’s desk without taking an immediate detour into the bin. There’s nothing there beyond vague generalities in the shape of grandiose declarations. Nothing is ever properly defined, what math there is is used as some sort of analogy or metaphor at best, and the references for specific details are to entire books. This isn’t bad because it’s a contentious or overly speculative piece, it’s bad just because it’s shoddy work. I mean, what is that ‘thought’-operator even supposed to be, mathematically? It seems to connect a superposition with its individual terms, which means it can’t be a ordinary quantum mechanical time evolution operator. (That there’s no such evolution is exactly the much-vaunted measurement problem, or well one of them at least.) So it seems to be something like a projection operator, but then eq. (10) is just nonsense, as a repeated projection would just yield the same state again. And neither quantum fluctuations nor symmetry breaking nor ‘self-reflection and creative emergence’ can facilitate that sort of transition. Also, if space and time are supposed to ‘emerge’ from |\Phi\_0\rangle, or perhaps one of the |\Phi\_k\rangle, what’s it doing all of a sudden obeying an ordinary space-time dependent wave equation? And Jesus, it just keeps getting worse. Seriously, this should not have been published, much less apparently gotten actual press in any other form than as a reverse Sokal-style hoax to expose that some journals will publish any old garbage. When I think of the hoops reviewers have made me jump through to make my arguments more rigorous (often for good reasons!) in my (by comparison rather tame) papers on consciousness, while this just gets published in this form… Anyhow, to not just make this an entirely negative post, I do think it’s not entirely unreasonable to think about a role of consciousness in fundamental physics. The idea that individual conscious entities are just ‘fragments’ of a fundamental consciousness suffering from a kind of [dissociative identity](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/), due to Bernardo Kastrup, has at least the virtue of being entertaining. That physicalism properly construed entails a kind of panpsychism, since the merely structural of physical science needs some kind of grounding, an idea proposed by [Galen Strawson](https://philarchive.org/rec/STRRM-2), makes a lot more sense than you’d think at first. Perhaps, consciousness can even tell us something about the measurement problem, as recent attempts to create an objective collapse-type theory where the magnitude of conscious experience, as measured via integrated information, plays the role of a [collapse operator](https://academic.oup.com/book/44484/chapter-abstract/392574703?redirectedFrom=fulltext) (due to non other than ‘Mr. Hard Problem’ David Chalmers) allege. Or perhaps Philipp Goff is right in that there isn’t just consciousness, but [full-blown agency](https://www.philosophy-of-education.org/book-review-why-the-purpose-of-the-universe-by-philip-goff/) all the way down to fundamental particles! All of these, I think, are wrong. But at least, they rise to the level of wrongness: they present a thesis that is sufficiently well realized to test their mettle against the cold, hard facts of the world—and fall short, as almost all ideas do. I had hoped for similar for the paper discussed in this thread, but found only something it would be a stretch to call ‘not even wrong’. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/15 "2026-03-03T17:58:50Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The idea that individual conscious entities are just ‘fragments’ of a fundamental consciousness suffering from a kind of [dissociative identity](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/), due to Bernardo Kastrup, has at least the virtue of being entertaining The idea is indeed highly entertaining, at least in the form of a [Rick and Morty episode parodying _Die Hard_.](https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Rick:_A_Mort_Well_Lived) Less entertaining in a serious research paper. ---
**Author:** ![dougrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/76d3ee/32.png) [@dougrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougrb)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/16 "2026-03-03T18:44:16Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > the idea that consciousness is a byproduct of information processing units that have feedback on their own functioning. The book I mentioned [HERE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ai-is-wonderful-and-will-make-your-life-better-not/1021117/358) posits exactly that. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/17 "2026-03-03T19:03:00Z")
So it’s not even wrong. ---
**Author:** ![xtenkfarpl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c2a13f/32.png) [@xtenkfarpl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xtenkfarpl)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/18 "2026-03-03T19:09:28Z")
I haven’t read the actual paper, but this sounds to me much like a rehash of James Lovelock’s Gaia ideas? > **[Gaia hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis)** > > The Gaia hypothesis (/ˈɡaɪ.ə/), also known as the Gaia theory, Gaia paradigm, or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. > The Gaia hypothesis was formulated by the chemist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s. Following the suggestion by his neighbour, novelis... More like poetry than philosophy. And not much like science. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/19 "2026-03-03T19:37:43Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The idea that individual conscious entities are just ‘fragments’ of a fundamental consciousness suffering from a kind of [dissociative identity](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/could-multiple-personality-disorder-explain-life-the-universe-and-everything/), due to Bernardo Kastrup, has at least the virtue of being entertaining. I like that one. I feel yet another new religion coming on. Maybe in the hot, dense, pre-Inflation Era, there was only one pervasive, all-inclusive consciousness, but (thanks to rapid expansion) that primal consciousness has been split, and can never be reunited thanks to the physical separation of the universe. The primal consciousness cannot ever recombine (thanks to light-speed-travel time and other related effects). Don’t go looking for salvation from above; we are all that’s left. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2026, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135/20 "2026-03-03T19:43:19Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > What experiment could be done to disprove the hypothesis? We just kill all the living organisms in the universe and then see is there’s still stuff around afterwards. I know what you’re thinking. Nemo, who’s going to be around to check if all life has been exterminated? Simple, we leave an automated camera running. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-consciousness-be-a-fundamental-field-physics-related/1028135.md?page=2)