1

One Universe: The United Principle of Consciousness in Quantum Physics and

Religion

Often, the human perception of knowledge organizes itself into a hierarchy based on

perceived logicality. If asked to describe the difference between physics and biology, for

example, we might say that physics is the “harder” science. We might justify this by saying that

while it is simple to make hypotheses about the effects of gravity and to test these hypotheses

using careful variables and control groups that lead to a clear conclusion, it is much more

difficult to test and verify the theories of evolution. We think of knowledge as existing on a

spectrum from “hard” to “soft,” from factual, logical, and number based understanding to

spiritual, less quantitative knowledge (Clayton 90). Some physicists might imagine quantum

physics as an isolated planet, guided by logical rules and grounded in unshakeable mathematics.

Philosophy might be a more distant planet; “softer” even than biology or psychology, visible

because its conclusions on human life may draw from scientific fact, but less grounded in data

and seemingly less logical than the planet of physics. Further on from these might exist the

planet representing religion; to many scientists it is completely invisible from the realm of

physics, built upon principles of spirituality and faith that are difficult to connect with scientific

realities. Despite our fondness for this type of compartmentalization, the patterns found in

quantum physics have undeniable philosophical implications and often parallel the patterns

found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. From these parallels it is possible to conclude

that the discoveries of quantum physics do not force religious or philosophical belief into

obsoletion, but connect with and support them through a shared understanding of the vital nature

of consciousness.

2

The Observer Effect of Quantum Physics and Consciousness as the Path to Non-Dualism

How can a cat be both dead and alive? This is the type of puzzling question that arose

from the absurdity of quantum randomness. Most of us have heard of Schrodinger’s famous

thought experiment, but the physics behind it is more obscure. In his model, a cat is locked in a

steel case with a Geiger counter, a radioactive substance, a hammer, and a vial of poisonous gas.

The Geiger counter will register the radioactive decay and, in response to it, trigger the hammer

to break the vial of poison, killing the cat. Radioactive substances decay randomly, existing in a

state known as superposition. In this state, the substance is both decayed and not yet decayed.

Until observed, the cat also exists in a state of superposition--because of this phenomenon we

must imagine that the cat is both dead and alive. When the box is opened and the cat is observed,

it will cease to exist in this state of possibility and will be either dead or alive (Kramer 1). From

this simple experiment it is already apparent that the presence of an observer and his or her effect

on reality is vital to quantum understanding. The conclusion of this experiment-- that an observer

has the ability to force possibility into actuality--may seem too strange to exist outside of thought

models; however, later experiments show the same type of observer effect acting upon light and

even matter.

Thomas Young’s double slit experiment was the first of many double path experiments to

discover unique interference patterns in light, and eventually in matter. His experiment, and

similar ones that followed it showed that light is able to act as both particles and waves. In this

type of experiment, light is passed through two slits cut into a solid screen, which is placed in

front of an observing screen. While we would assume that the light passing through the two slits

would cast two bars onto the observation screen, something completely baffling occurred. The

light appeared on the observing screen in light and dark bars, indicating an interference pattern

3

indicative of wavelike behavior. Although this pattern seemed to prove that light traveled in

waves, researchers soon realized the duality of light. The light appeared to travel through the slits

as waves, but was, in actuality, absorbed by the observation screen at unique points—the light

was behaving as if it was composed of individual particles (Alda and Greene). Even when the

same type of experiment was done with electrons, the results still indicated of particle wave

duality. The electrons also seemed to act as waves, forming an interference pattern on the

observation screen as they were shot through the slits one by one. The conclusion was

inescapable; the electrons were leaving the gun as particles, becoming waves of potential to

travel through both slits, and then interfering with themselves to hit the second screen as single

particles. Mathematically, this was nearly impossible to understand. Because of the unique

behavior of the electrons, it appeared that they were going through both slits, or neither slit, or

one slit, or the other. The particles existed as possibility waves, so it was impossible to describe

what actually happened to each electron. This question led to the design of the experiment at the

root of our understanding of the observer effect.

Physicists decided to observe the electrons as they went through the slits in order to

understand exactly how they were behaving. Before, the electrons had created an interference

pattern on the observation screen because of the way they acted as probability waves. With the

presence of a human observer, however, the electrons lost their function as waves. Each electron

was forced to “choose” one slit or the other, and instead of an interference pattern, a pattern

consistent with the two slits was formed on the observation screen. The very act of observation

had collapsed the interference pattern suggestive of a wavelike quality, forcing the electrons to

act like particles (“Dr. Quantum—Double Slit Experiment”)

4

The philosophical implications of these experiments are stunning. Human awareness has

the ability to change the way matter acts, but does this mean that matter has an awareness of its

own that causes it to respond to the presence of an observer? What does the fact that human

observation can control the behavior of light and matter mean about our place within the

universe?

Amit Goswami’s works on consciousness attempt to understand how exactly we hold the

power to change the path of electrons. An electron, like any object, exists as a wave of

probability. Quantum physics is able to calculate the probability of each possibility of a quantum

wave, but cannot calculate how a wave is reduced to a unique actuality. Goswami references

John Van Neummen’s hypothesis that this unknown reducing factor is a “nonmaterial,

transcendent consciousness” (Goswami 537).

Goswami’s theory is a belief consistent with monistic idealism, the idea that instead of

being defined by matter, the universe is defined by consciousness. Goswami understands

consciousness as a bridge between the dualities, such as brain and mind or life and nonlife, often

found in physics. The earlier example seems to be the perfect duality. The brain is concrete,

physical, while the mind is vague, abstract because it transcends the physical; it is not understood

how the two are connected.

Goswami uses research often labeled as parapsychology to argue that the dualities of

physics can be connected with consciousness. In one experiment, telepathic patterns were

observed that indicate the non-localized transfer of ideas to be similar to quantum movements. In

another experiment a light flashed randomly, appearing either green or red. Observers were

asked to will the light to flash one color; when the results were recorded they showed that the

observer’s willpower had a noticeable affect on the light patterns. If the observer had willed the

5

light to be green, it did not appear red half the time as was expected, even when it flashed

hundreds of times (Goswami 539). The act of observation, and perhaps the abstract power of the

human consciousness had changed the expected outcome of concrete events.

The types of research described by physicists like Goswami are often shocking and

difficult to believe, especially for those who are deeply religious. The tension between scientific

findings and traditional faith is not novel; science and religion have struggled against each other

in an uneasy balance for centuries. At the time of the Scientific Revolution, the Church became

more focused on persecuting heretics and forbidding their works than on spreading its own

beliefs. Astronomers like Copernicus and Galileo created new models of the solar system in

which the earth rotated around the sun. These models contradicted the Church’s view of the earth

as the all-important center of the universe, and both scientists’ books were banned (Leveillee 1).

For years, theists and religious philosophers have tried to avoid or disprove scientific

discoveries, eager to ensure that these new realities are unable to remove credibility from their

beliefs. In the past few decades, however, our scientific discoveries have changed and expanded

hugely. Scientific research is no longer limited to the tangible world of our planet; it has

expanded to include the smallest particles and the greatest expanse of space. The most recent

scientific discoveries are often difficult to believe, extraordinary in a way that allows theists to

draw on them as support for belief in a higher power. Instead of warring against each other,

religion and science have begun to echo one another.

6

Religion and Consciousness as the Ultimate Truth

In the tradition of the Advaita Vedanta, a precursor to modern Hinduism, five types of

consciousness define the universe. There is absolute, cosmic, individual, and indwelling

consciousness. Above these is Brahman, or pure consciousness. Despite these distinctions, the

Vedanta describes a consciousness that is truly one and non-dual, separated into different types

merely to please the simplistic human understanding of the world. One of the driving questions

stemming from this belief is how the undivided and absolute reality of consciousness became our

universe of duality and change. This is a difficult question to answer, because it questions

whether everything we know is simply an illusion of multiplicity. The philosopher

Shankaracharya devised a superimposition theory that explained the phenomenon of a universe

of duality built from an undivided consciousness. He told the story of a man who walked through

his village at night and was frightened by a snake lying on the road. When the man neared the

snake, he shone his lantern on it and realized that it was only a piece of rope. This myth parallels

the physical understanding of the observer effect. The man’s observation of the snake leads him

to see that it is simply a rope, but until he does so his response to it, his perception of its reality,

is the same as if it were truly a snake. The relationship between snake and rope also acts as a

metaphor for the relationship of the universe and Brahman. While it may seem that the existence

of the rope and the illusion of the snake are impossible to connect, Shankaracharya suggested

that, just as the universe cannot exist without consciousness, the snake could not exist without

the rope. It is thus the human purpose to look beneath the illusions of our world to the truth

defined by pure consciousness; in other words, we must look beyond our divided perception of

the world to understand it nondually (Brahmaprana 1).

7

In the Buddhist tradition, our earthly lives are described as samsara or “wandering.” We

wander through these lives, making mistakes and suffering so that our spirits can learn and grow

until we are allowed to cease the endless cycle of death and rebirth and enter the blissful state of

Nirvana. The philosopher Nagarjuna believed that there is no difference between samsara and

sukhavati, The Pure Land, Nirvana, The Land of Bliss. In any sect of Buddhism, Nirvana is

understood, in the words of Edward Conze, as “permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable…it

is the real Truth and the supreme Reality.” Herein lies the argument against Nagarjuna’s vision

of samsara and sukhavati as completely one. If they are the same, why are our earthly lives filled

with human suffering and sorrow instead of the pure bliss of Nirvana? The Buddha himself

described our existence in the “saha world…a world in which pain and suffering must be

endured.” It seems clear that it is counterintuitive to attempt to understand samhara and

sukhavati as one, but modern philosophies of Mahayana Buddhism may be able to show that

they are, despite their differences, not completely opposite.

Buddhists believe in no single deity or creator, instead, they believe in the ultimate bliss

of Nirvana and the Dharmakaya, described as “eternity, bliss, Self, and purity.” The dharmakaya

“is transcendent…it lies beyond anything we can conceive or perceive. It…lies at the heart of all

things of which it is also the ultimate source.” Although we cannot perceive its existence, the

abstract dharmakaya is not unknown to humans. The Hua-yen school of Buddhism “[sees] all

phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind.” This definition

of the dharmakaya is similar to Goswami’s definition of consciousness as a transcendent,

unifying factor. This concept of a central oneness that gives birth to our varied reality influenced

new doctrines in china, Korea, and Japan—from the beliefs of the Eternal Buddha of the Lotus

sutra to the Pure Land sutras and the Buddha Mhavairocana. Using the less-dual understanding

8

of the dependence of our impermanent and changeable existence on the eternal reality of the

dharmakaya supports the “central Mahayana notion of the interdependence of all things, for

beneath the deceptive and dream-like world of appearances, we find that there is nothing

substantial that truly separates one being from another” (Paraskevopoulos 1). It is clear that the

idea that our “reality” depends on some type of ultimately truthful consciousness is common to

both Hinduism and Buddhism, and that Goswami’s non-dual method of understanding dissimilar

quantum physical entities can also be applied to our universe.

The concept of a transcendent, non-dual, and imminent force that serves as a guiding reality

for our existence may seem absent from traditionally theistic belief systems such as Christianity.

In Christian theistic faith, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, but is not the essence

of the universe. God is omnipotent and infinite, but not intrinsically present within finite beings.

Generally, Christian faith sees the mortal world and Heaven as strictly dual; the main link

between the two is that human actions in the mortal world affect the soul’s ability to find peace

in Heaven. Despite this strictly defined duality, modern Christ Consciousness allows an

understanding of God that more closely mirrors the Buddhist understanding of dharmakaya.

Often mockingly called Christ-less Christianity, Christ Consciousness is the belief that the

human mind is blessed with spiritual currents that contain information from a transcendent,

omnipotent Spirit who is the “source of everything true, beautiful, and good.” Christ

Consciousness is defined as “the growing human recognition and blending of the human

evolutionary (or ego) mind with the Divine Mind and the Divine Personality that is the source of

human…fulfillment” (“What is Christ Consciousness?” 1).

Although it is a more modern school of Christian belief, ideas similar to Christ

Consciousness have been a part of Christianity since the time of Pseudo-Dionysius, a Syrian

9

monk from the 5th or 6th century who wrote his works using the pseudonym Dionysius the

Areopagite. Pseudo-Dionysius wrote works on mystical theology, focusing on the ineffability of

god and the apophatic approach to understanding him; in this approach his followers focus on

describing characteristics that he does not have until their remaining understanding is numinous,

so above typical human understandings that it cannot be described by words. This type of

approach seems to apply to Goswami’s nondualism as well as the Hindu and Buddhist goal of

stripping away the multiplicities of the world to reveal the united truth. Despite the seeming

humility of a belief in a god so awful that his followers cannot describe him, one of the pillars of

mystical theology and today’s Christ Consciousness is the idea of the divinization of humanity.

The followers of Christ Consciousness don’t actually believe that they will become gods

themselves, distinguishing between “the essence of God and divine attributes, which they regard

as energies that penetrate the universe.” Pseudo-Dionysius defined creation as a process in which

the divine Being is “transported outside of Himself…to dwell within the heart of all things”

(“Christianity” 97).

The Human Ego and A Model for the Unity of Individual and Transcendent

Consciousness

If we choose to believe that humans are able to hold some aspect of the divine within

ourselves, and even undergo a process of enlightenment or divinization, we must also

acknowledge the fact that our greater power seems to lessen the importance of higher powers.

This question is complicated by the existence of the anthropic principle, which holds the power

of human consciousness above all else. As the realm of scientific knowledge becomes

continuously broader and more complex, theists have begun to draw proof for their beliefs from

10

scientific discoveries instead of attempting to ignore or disprove the facts that contradicted their

faith. Philosophers and theists alike are drawn into the worlds of cosmology and quantum

physics, finding miraculous parallels rather than discouraging contradictions to their beliefs in

the newest findings. In the recent decades, scientists have discovered numerous instances of

almost unbelievable coincidences that, if shifted even the tiniest fraction, could destroy the

universe as we know it. One example is the delicate balance of gravity and electromagnetism in

the stars. If this balance was shifted by a practically infinitesimal amount in either direction, our

stars would be destroyed and our universe would become unable to host any planets suitable for

life. This type of cosmic luck has caused many to wonder if perhaps our strangely-ordered world

is an “indication of the existence of a very powerful being with a special interest in the

emergence and survival of human-like creatures” (Schlesinger 1). This would seem to describe a

universe created for human wants and needs. However, this science has long been led astray by

our own arrogance--take the Earth-centered Ptolemaic astronomy model, for example--and it

seems unwise to believe that the entire universe revolves around humans. After all, we are not

the only creatures with awareness and consciousness. Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors,

elephants seem to have an understanding of death, birds can use tools and learn to speak new

languages, and even plants can communicate with one another or learn and store new

information. It is impossible to insist that human beings are the only living organisms with

conscious needs; the anthropic principle ignores the fact that humans are not necessarily central

to the coincidences and patterns of the universe.

Another theory that may be less narrow in its focus on humanity’s importance is Robert

Lanza’s concept of biocentrism. Biocentrism combines biology with the concepts of quantum

physics to understand our world as a myriad of unique realities, each created by an individual

11

organism’s perception. In this theory, each organism, from the powerful man to the tiniest insect

is the center of its “own sphere of reality” (Lanza 19). Biocentric understanding is based upon

the idea “that all truths and principles of being must begin with the individual mind and self.” As

Descartes stated, “I think; therefore I am,” our individual perceptions are the only way we can

define the world around us (Lanza 20). The act of conscious awareness defines an individual’s

existence, and possibly shapes the reality of its experience.

While the recognition of all sentient organisms in biocentrism seems more encompassing

than the egotism of the anthropic principle, biocentrism may at first appear to contradict the

theories of non-dualism apparent in the previously mentioned religions. If each organism creates

its own reality based on an individual consciousness, how can the interconnectedness of

everything central to Hindu and Buddhist belief exist? Individual realities seem to refute the

belief that a transcendent higher power acts as the creator or framework of our universe. To show

that even the theory of individual reality does not disprove the existence of a higher, unifying

power, we must return to Goswami’s concepts of physics within nondualism. Goswami’s writing

aims to describe the world as matter defined by probability waves that, in turn, exist within a

transcendent and all-encompassing consciousness--the “reducing factor.” It is this reducing

factor that allows us to view the world in a non-dual sense. Goswami’s “quantum-within-

consciousness” model parallels the ideas of Buddhism (Goswami 539). Mahayana belief insists

“on the presence of the Buddha-nature in each sentient being.” Thus, the infinite reality of the

Buddha, Nirvana, and dharmakaya must “dwell in the hearts of finite beings.” We can imagine

our world as quantum probabilities existing within a transcendent consciousness. Some of that

consciousness also exists within each of us, allowing us to define our realities with our

observations and perceptions.

12

Consciousness and the Coalescence of Science and Religion

We can see that the thread of consciousness runs through quantum physics, philosophy

and religion, from biology to cosmology it connects our fragmented understanding of the

universe into a single whole. From Schrodinger’s infamous cat model to the most progressive

parapsychology experiments we can see that conscious observation has an effect on physical

realities. Consciousness allows the abstract awareness of an observer to affect the concrete

reality of matter; it is the bridge between the dualities of our world from brain to mind and from

nonlife to life. In the tradition of the Indian Advaita Vedanta, consciousness is truly one and non-

dual, thought it is divided to satisfy our simplistic understanding of the world. Consciousness in

the Vedanta is the ultimate but unperceivable truth upon which our perceptions of the physical

world depend. In various schools of Buddhism dharmakaya is the origin of everything, the

ultimate reality hidden by the illusive multiplicities of the physical world. Dharmakaya is the

overarching source of all things, but is also present in each individual, allowing the phenomenal

variations of our world to spring from one undifferentiated “mind” which can be understood as a

kind of transcendent consciousness. Similarly, mystic theology and Christ Conscious

Christianity believe that humanity can be made divine when the divine Being, which can be

understand as God or a type of consciousness reaches out to exist within all things. Through the

theory of Biocentrism it is apparent that the creating power of conscious observation is not

limited to humans. Goswami’s understanding of consciousness as an all-encompassing power

containing the probability waves that define our world unifies the concept of individual

consciousness creating individual realities.

From the tiniest beetle to the great blue whale, we can see that everything exists in a

world defined by consciousness and has its own powerful consciousness. Even light and matter

13

seem to show consciousness or awareness when they respond to human observers. The truth of

consciousness as a foundation for the world has ancient roots in religion; the discoveries of

quantum physics echo these beliefs with startling accuracy, forming new parallels that allow us

to understand that, just as the illusion of our physical word and the truth of the consciousness

that defines it are one, our understanding of science and religion may also find unity through

nondualism. The planets that originally seemed so distant can only grow closer to one another as

we continue to understand our universe in new ways.

14

Works Cited

Alda, Alan, and Brian Greene. The "Invisible Reality" of Quantum Theory. Prod. World Science

Festival. YouTube. N.p., 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 15 May 2015.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxRfDtaot5U>.

Brahmaprana, Pravrajika. "Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta." Hindupedia. Prabhuddha

Bharata, 29 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 May 2015.

"Christianity". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 15 May. 2015

Clayton, Philip. "Explanation from Physics to the Philosophy of Religion." International Journal

for Philosophy of Religion 26.2 (1989): 89-108. JSTOR. Web. 15 May 2015.

Dr. Quantum-Double Slit Experiment. YouTube. N.p., 27 Dec. 2010. Web. 15 May 2015.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho>.

Goswami, Amit. "Physics within Nondual Consciousness." Philosophy East and West 51.4

(2001): 535-44. JSTOR. Web. 15 May 2015.

Kramer, Melody. "The Physics Behind Schrodinger's Cat Paradox." National Geographic 14

Aug. 2013: n. pag. Web. 15 May 2015.

Lanza, Robert. "A New Theory of the Universe: Biocentrism Builds on Quantum Physics by

Putting Life into the Equation." The American Scholar 76.2 (2007): 18-33. JSTOR. Web.

15 May 2015.

Leveillee, Nicholas P. "Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a Religious World."

Student Pulse 3.05 (2011). 15 May 2015.

Paraskevopoulos, John. "Sukhavati and Samsara: Non-Duality in Pure Land Buddhism." Journal

of Shin Buddhism: n. pag. Web. 15 May 2015.

Schlesinger, George N. "The Anthropic Principle." Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish

Thought 23.3 (1988): 1-8. JSTOR. Web. 15 May 2015.

"What is Christ Consciousness?" Center for Christ Consciousness. Center for Christ

Consciousness, 2010. Web. 15 May 2015.