That’s What I Want to Be – and What the Now Offers
January 20, 2026
Does consciousness create reality? New research between physics and Advaita
Consciousness and quantum physics are two fields that have been challenging our understanding of reality for over a hundred years. Quantum physics because it shows that, at a fundamental level, the world cannot be described independently of observation. Consciousness, because it is still unclear how subjective experience fits into a physical worldview.
Since the early debates about the observer effect, physicists have been wrestling with the question of what role observation plays: Is it merely a technical measurement process, or does it touch on something more fundamental? For a long time, it was considered scientifically sound to exclude consciousness from physical theories and regard it as a late by-product of neural processes. However, this exclusion leaves open questions that remain unresolved to this day.
Against this backdrop, a recent theoretical paper from quantum research is attracting attention. It proposes that consciousness should no longer be thought of as a derivative phenomenon of matter, but as a fundamental field from which space, time, and material structures emerge. It is an approach that challenges the current materialistic paradigm, not polemically, but formally and conceptually precisely.
What is striking is not so much the radical nature of the thesis as its resonance. Similar assumptions have been found for centuries in non-dual philosophical traditions such as Advaita: the idea that consciousness does not appear in the universe, but that the universe appears in consciousness. The crucial question is therefore not whether modern physics “confirms spiritual truths,” but whether two paths of knowledge meet at a common boundary.
This article classifies the new model from a physical, epistemological, and philosophical perspective. It asks what exactly is being claimed—and what is not. And it explores the question of why the connection between consciousness and quantum physics is not just a theoretical problem, but one that touches many people existentially.
What does quantum physics say about consciousness?
Quantum physics has fundamentally shaken the classical worldview of physics. While classical mechanics assumes that objects exist independently of their observation and are measurable, quantum mechanics paints a different picture: at a fundamental level, the properties of a system cannot be described independently of the measurement process.
Central to this is the insight that particles do not have clearly defined properties before a measurement. Instead, they are described by probability functions that only take on a concrete value at the moment of measurement. This phenomenon raises a question that remains unanswered to this day: What exactly causes this transition from possibility to reality?
In established physical practice, this question is often pragmatically sidestepped. The formal calculations work, the predictions are precise – so the ontological significance of the measurement process is ignored. In this context, consciousness appears at most indirectly, for example as a property of an experimental setup or as a cognitive achievement of the researcher, but not as a component of the theory itself.
Nevertheless, it is striking that consciousness has never been completely excluded from the discussion. Whenever the fundamentals of quantum physics are at stake, it reappears: in connection with the observer effect, the collapse of the wave function, or the question of what actually counts as a “measurement.” These problems are not marginal issues, but touch on the core of what physical reality means.
It is important to clarify the terminology here. When quantum physics refers to consciousness – explicitly or implicitly – it is not talking about subjective experience, feelings, or personal inner worlds. Rather, it is asking whether reality can be described entirely without reference to observation, or whether observation itself plays a constitutive role.
It is precisely at this point that space opens up for newer theoretical approaches. They do not start with psychological models, but with the unresolved basic assumptions of physics itself. The question is then no longer how consciousness arises from matter, but whether matter can be conceived at all without a fundamental form of consciousness.
This transforms consciousness from a marginal phenomenon into a key epistemological question. Not as a gap in our understanding, but as a possible starting point for an expanded understanding of reality.
The observer problem and the measurement problem in quantum mechanics
Among the central unresolved questions in quantum physics are the observer problem and the closely related measurement problem. Both mark the point at which the formal description of quantum mechanics reaches its conceptual limits.
In mathematical formalism, the state of a quantum physical system is described by a wave function. This does not contain a concrete reality, but rather a multitude of possible states, probabilities of how a system could behave during a measurement. Only at the moment of measurement does this multitude of possibilities transform into a concrete measured value. This transition is referred to as the collapse of the wave function.
The problem here is not that the collapse takes place, but that the theory itself cannot explain when, why, and how it happens. In formalism, the measurement process appears to be qualitatively different from the rest of the physical dynamics. This creates a separation between the system described by quantum mechanics and the act of observation, which cannot be neatly resolved in theory.
The observer effect – why observation is not neutral
The so-called observer effect is often misunderstood. It does not mean that human consciousness “creates” reality through attention or intention. Rather, it means that every measurement necessarily represents an interaction. In order to measure something, the system must interact with a measuring device, and this interaction changes the state of the system.
But even this explanation is not sufficient. Even if measuring devices are fully automated, the question remains as to what point a quantum mechanical system is considered “measured.” Is it the interaction with the device? The registration of a result? Or only the existence of a clearly defined state that can be described classically?
This shows that observation in quantum physics is not merely a technical process, but marks a conceptual boundary: the transition from quantum mechanical possibility to classical reality.
The measurement problem – an open wound in physics
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics consists precisely in the fact that this transition cannot be explained within the framework of the theory. Different interpretations attempt to close this gap: some shift the collapse to hidden variables, others postulate many parallel worlds in which all possibilities are realized. Still others dispense with ontological interpretation altogether and content themselves with the calculation rule.
What all these approaches have in common is that they do not solve the problem, but rather reinterpret it. Either the observer is excluded, multiplied, or conceptually neutralized. The actual question of what reality means at the moment of measurement remains.
This is precisely where newer theoretical considerations come in. They no longer ask only how the measurement problem can be circumvented technically, but whether the basic assumption itself needs to be questioned: the idea that consciousness is something that arises only in an already existing world.
This makes the measurement problem the linchpin of a more profound question. Not as an indication of a failure of physics, but as a signal that the relationship between consciousness, observation, and reality could be fundamentally rethought.
Consciousness as a fundamental field – what the new research is about
The current theoretical model, which is receiving new attention in the debate on consciousness and quantum physics, addresses precisely the gaps in previous physics. It proposes reversing the usual direction of explanation: consciousness does not arise from matter, but matter arises within a fundamental field of consciousness.
Consciousness here explicitly does not refer to individual, psychological, or personal experience. The model speaks of a universal, non-local consciousness—a fundamental field that precedes physical fields. In this approach, space, time, energy, and matter do not appear as ultimate realities, but as structures that emerge from this field.
The decisive step is to no longer treat consciousness as a special problem of neuroscience, but as a basic ontological assumption. Similar to spacetime or energy, consciousness is conceived here as something that cannot be further reduced. It is not the result of complex processes, but rather the condition under which processes can be described at all.
Formulated in physical terms, the model attempts to grasp consciousness as a kind of invariant background field that enables information processes.
Measurements, observations, and the apparent “determination” of reality are then no longer understood as external interventions, but as internal dynamics of this field. The collapse of the wave function thus loses its exceptional character and becomes an expression of a deeper order.
Importantly, the paper does not claim to provide empirical evidence for consciousness as the fundamental basis. It is a theoretical model that aims for consistency, mathematical connectivity, and conceptual clarity. Its value lies not in experimental results, but in proposing an alternative framework within which familiar problems of quantum physics can be reinterpreted.
This is precisely what distinguishes this approach from popular interpretations that use quantum physics to confirm spiritual assumptions. This is not about experience, enlightenment, or meaning, but about the question of which basic principle could enable a coherent understanding of reality. In this context, consciousness does not appear as an explanation for everything—but as a necessary prerequisite for anything to be explained at all.
This step shifts the focus of the debate. The question is no longer how consciousness arises in a material world, but how a material world can be described within a conscious universe. It is precisely this shift that makes the model compatible with philosophical traditions – and at the same time so challenging for the established physical mainstream.
What Maria Strømme’s theory does not claim
Precisely because the thesis of a fundamental field of consciousness is far-reaching, a clear demarcation is crucial. The model presented is often misunderstood or hastily classified into familiar patterns of interpretation. This makes it all the more important to specify precisely what is not being said here.
First of all, the theory does not claim that individual human consciousness creates reality. It is not about thoughts, intentions, or subjective experience in the psychological sense. Everyday self-awareness does not play a privileged role in this model. Consciousness is not thought of as personal here, but as a universal, structural principle that underlies all phenomena.
Nor is it an esoteric or spiritual teaching. The model provides no guidance on how to live one’s life, no promises of salvation, and no statements about the meaning, purpose, or moral order of the universe. It does not describe any experience and does not claim to be confirmed by inner insight. Its claim is conceptual and formal—not existential or religious.
Nor is the paper an attack on science or rationality. On the contrary, it moves entirely within a scientific discourse and responds to real theoretical problems in physics. The criticism is not directed against empirical research, but against certain ontological assumptions, in particular against the tacit materialism that posits matter as the ultimate reality.
It is also important to note that the theory does not claim experimental proof of consciousness as the fundamental basis. It is not falsifiable in the classical sense, but rather paradigmatic: it proposes a different starting point from which known phenomena can be reinterpreted. In this respect, it is in line with other basic assumptions of physics, which are not themselves experimentally proven, but are justified by their explanatory power.
Finally, consciousness as a fundamental field does not mean that “everything is consciousness” in a simplistic sense. Matter, energy, and physical laws do not lose their validity in this model. They are not negated, but understood relationally: as forms of expression within a more comprehensive framework.
These distinctions are crucial in order not to overstretch the theory. Its contribution lies not in confirming or refuting existing worldviews, but in re-posing the question of the fundamentals. Only against this background does it become understandable why there are points of contact with non-dual philosophies at this point – without this implying an equation between them.
Non-duality and science – points of contact with Advaita
At the point where physics begins to think of consciousness as a fundamental principle, a proximity to non-dual philosophical traditions inevitably arises. This resonance is particularly evident in Advaita, a school of thought that has assumed for centuries that consciousness is not part of the world, but rather the condition under which the world appears.
Advaita formulates this insight not as a theory, but as a path to knowledge. The central assumption is that the separation between subject and object, between observer and observed, has no ultimate reality. Consciousness here is not something that someone “has,” but rather that in which all experiences, thoughts, and perceptions arise. The world is not created, but appears—in consciousness.
This is precisely where a structural parallel to the current discussion in quantum physics becomes apparent. There, too, the classical separation between observer and observed world is beginning to falter. The idea of a completely objective reality that exists independently of observation cannot be maintained at the quantum mechanical level. Rather, reality appears as something relational, as the result of an interplay of possibility, measurement, and context.
However, it is important not to interpret this parallel too hastily as a correspondence. Advaita and modern physics operate on different levels. Advaita aims at direct insight into the nature of the self and reality. Physics, on the other hand, works with formal models, mathematical structures, and theoretical assumptions. What is similar is not the path, but the point at which both reach a limit.
This limit concerns the question of what is primary. Is matter the basis from which consciousness arises – or is consciousness the prerequisite for matter to appear as such in the first place? Advaita answers this question unequivocally in favor of consciousness. New physical research is reopening the question for the first time without dogmatically defining it.
This is precisely where the significance of these points of contact lies. It is not a matter of scientifically legitimizing spiritual teachings or philosophically charging physical models. Rather, it shows that different traditions of knowledge independently arrive at the same fundamental question. Not as a conclusion, but as an open challenge: How can we conceive of a reality in which consciousness is not on the periphery, but at the center?
At this point, it becomes clear why the topic of consciousness and quantum physics goes beyond a purely academic debate. It touches not only on the structure of our theories, but also on the way we understand ourselves and our relationship to the world.
Does consciousness create reality? A precise classification
The question of whether consciousness creates reality is often posed in a pointed manner in the context of consciousness and quantum physics. It is catchy, provocative—and at the same time misleading. For it suggests that consciousness is understood as a kind of acting entity that actively brings forth a world. However, this very idea falls short.
Neither the physical model of a fundamental field of consciousness nor non-dual philosophies such as Advaita claim that reality is “made” in the sense of a conscious act. Consciousness here is not a creator that produces something, but rather the condition under which something can appear. It is not about causality, but about enabling.
This distinction is particularly clear in quantum physics. The measurement process is not a creative act of the observer, but a process in which possibilities are translated into concrete states. If consciousness plays a role in this context, it is not as the cause of individual events, but as the framework within which reality can be determined at all.
Advaita also does not speak of a creative consciousness in the active sense. The world is not brought forth, but appears in consciousness—similar to how images appear on a canvas without the canvas itself doing anything. This metaphor points to a fundamental asymmetry: phenomena come and go, but the consciousness in which they appear remains unaffected.
The question “Does consciousness create reality?” can therefore be rephrased more precisely: Is consciousness the prerequisite for something to be experienced and described as reality? In this form, the question loses its speculative character and becomes epistemologically fruitful.
It is precisely this shift that is crucial to avoiding misunderstandings. It clearly separates the approach discussed here from popular notions in which thoughts shape the world or reality can be manifested at will. Such concepts miss both the physical and philosophical depth of the debate.
Instead, a sober but far-reaching insight comes to the fore: reality is not simply given, but is always embedded in a relationship—a relationship of possibility, observation, and meaning. In this context, consciousness does not mark an origin in the temporal sense, but rather a structural horizon without which reality cannot be meaningfully conceived.
Why this debate affects us personally
The question of the relationship between consciousness and reality is not just a theoretical problem in physics or philosophy. It touches on fundamental assumptions about who we are and how we stand in the world. This is precisely why the discussion about consciousness and quantum physics is attracting attention far beyond the academic sphere.
If consciousness is understood not as a product of a material world, but as a prerequisite for the world to be experienced and described at all, our view of our own self shifts. Identity is then no longer exclusively tied to the body, biography, or achievement. The experience of an “I” appears less as a clearly defined entity and more as part of a larger context that cannot be completely controlled.
This perspective can be unsettling, but it can also be a relief. Many people experience constant pressure to optimize, control, or explain themselves. The idea that consciousness is not something you must possess or create, but rather something in which experiences arise, challenges this self-image. It relativizes the need to have everything under control. This raises the question: Who is in control of this life?
This perspective also has consequences in the interpersonal sphere. If reality is not strictly objective and independent, but always arises relationally, the way we deal with difference, perception, and truth changes. Perspectives do not become arbitrary, but they do become situational. This opens up space for dialogue instead of insisting on unambiguous interpretations.
Last but not least, this debate explains why non-dual approaches resonate strongly with many people. They provide less answers than a space for experience in which the relationship between inside and outside, between self and world, can be rearranged. Modern physics confirms these experiences and is also contradicting them less and less.
This is precisely where the real significance of current research becomes apparent. It does not force us to abandon existing worldviews, but invites us to relativize them. Consciousness does not become the solution to all problems, but rather a point of reference that deepens questions instead of hastily closing them. What significance does it have for my own life if everything is one, if oneness is reality?
This makes it understandable why the discussion about consciousness and quantum physics is not experienced as an abstract thought experiment. It touches on existential issues: control and trust, identity and belonging, separation and connectedness. Not because it provides answers, but because it leads to a boundary that many people are already standing at.
Or did you really expect your brain to create the universe?
Limits, criticism, and open questions
As far-reaching as the assumptions of a fundamental field of consciousness are, they are not without criticism. Especially in scientific discourse, it is crucial to take these objections seriously in order to avoid ideologizing the debate about consciousness and quantum physics.
A central point of criticism concerns falsifiability. Many physicists argue that models that posit consciousness as an ontological basis are difficult or impossible to test experimentally. If consciousness itself is the condition of all measurement, the question arises as to how it can be empirically tested within the same framework. This approach thus moves to the boundary of what is classically considered natural science.
Added to this is the accusation that such models shift philosophical problems into physics. Terms such as consciousness, experience, or meaning are highly charged in epistemology and cannot be easily translated into mathematical structures. Critics fear that this will create new ambiguities rather than eliminate existing ones.
From a physical point of view, it also remains unclear whether a field of consciousness is actually more explanatory than existing interpretations of quantum mechanics. Many competing models—from many-worlds interpretations to information-based approaches—do not explicitly refer to consciousness and are nevertheless consistent. The question is therefore not whether consciousness is a possible basis, but whether it is a necessary one.
At the same time, proponents point out that every physical theory is based on fundamental assumptions that cannot be further justified. Space, time, energy, and information are not empirically proven entities themselves, but rather theoretical postulates that are justified by their explanatory power. In this sense, consciousness as a fundamental assumption is not a special case, but rather part of a long tradition of paradigm shifts.
It also remains unclear how a universal consciousness relates specifically to the diversity of individual perspectives. How do subjectivity, difference, and individual experience arise within a non-local field? Neither physics nor philosophy provides a conclusive answer to this question, which highlights the need for further research. My own experience confirms this, as consciousness cannot be proven, but it can be experienced.
It is precisely these open questions that make it clear that this is not a closed theory. Rather, it points to a process of exploration that is renegotiating the boundaries between physics, philosophy, and epistemology. Consciousness does not become the ultimate explanation, but rather the touchstone for how far our previous models carry us. I suspect that Swedish researcher Maria Strømme knows the experience of being conscious. Without this experiential space (which is not a personal one), I do not believe she can make this research statement.
An open boundary between consciousness and reality
The current debate about consciousness and quantum physics does not mark a breakthrough in the sense of a definitive answer. Rather, it shows that some of the fundamental assumptions on which our understanding of reality is based are once again up for debate. Not because they have been refuted, but because they are reaching limits that can no longer be ignored. The Swedish researcher has simply driven a stake into the universe, thereby making her position or experience clear.
The theoretical model presented, which conceives of consciousness as a fundamental field, does not resolve the open problems of quantum physics. However, it shifts the perspective. Instead of asking how consciousness arises in an already existing material world, the question is reversed: Under what conditions can a world appear as reality at all?
This shift is where the real significance of the approach lies. It does not force us to abandon physical theories or adopt philosophical traditions. It merely calls on us to reconsider the relationship between observation, experience, and reality. Consciousness is not only mystified, but understood as a possible framework within which physical descriptions become meaningful.
It is remarkable that points of contact with non-dualistic ways of thinking such as Advaita are apparent at this point, and this could be evidence of a substantive agreement. It suggests that different paths to knowledge (scientific and contemplative) reach similar limits when they consistently pursue the question of the basis of reality. One through theory and the other through traditional, embodied experience.
Perhaps this is precisely where the productive value of this discussion lies. Not in elevating consciousness to the ultimate explanatory principle, but in keeping open what eludes clear definition. Between the physical model and philosophical insight, a space emerges that provides less answers than orientation and a possible space for experience.
Consciousness and quantum physics meet at this boundary not as competing worldviews, but as two attempts to reconcile models of reality. Whether this will result in a new paradigm remains to be seen. The only certainty is that the question of consciousness can no longer be marginalized—neither in physics nor in our own understanding of reality.
Literature & further sources
Oneness – an invitation to look beyond concepts. Sign up for the newsletter and you will receive the book as a download for $0.
Hi, I’m Shivani
Blogger and podcaster at Madhukar Enlighten Life. I’ve known Madhukar since 2004 and do what I can to ensure that his effective message of happiness reaches as many people as possible. This post came from my pen – and ChatGpt helped me a little.
