The Reality Crisis / Introduction

The Reality Crisis

On Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics,

Consciousness and Synchronicity

06/07/2025

Introduction
Part 1: Cosmology in crisis: the epicycles of ΛCDM
Part 2: The missing science of consciousness
Part 3: The Two Phase Cosmology (2PC)
Part 4: Synchronicity and the New Epistemic Deal (NED)

Copyright 2025 Geoff Dann. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15823610
Zenodo link for a PDF of the whole series of articles as single document

Introduction

Our starting point must be the recognition that as things currently stand, we face not just one but three crises in our understanding of the nature of reality, and that the primary reason we cannot find a way out is because we have failed to understand that these apparently different problems must be different parts of the same Great Big Problem. The three great crises are these:

(1) Cosmology. 

The currently dominant cosmological theory is called Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM), and it is every bit as broken as Ptolemaic geocentrism was in the 16^th century. It consists of an ever-expanding conglomeration of ad-hoc fixes, most of which create as many problems as they solve. Everybody working in cosmology knows it is broken. 

(2) Quantum mechanics. 

Not the science of quantum mechanics. The problem here is the metaphysical interpretation. As things stand there are at least 12 major “interpretations”, each of which has something different to say about what is known as the Measurement Problem: how we bridge the gap between the infinitely-branching parallel worlds described by the mathematics of quantum theory, and the singular world we actually experience (or “observe” or “measure”). These interpretations continue to proliferate, making consensus increasingly difficult. None are integrated with cosmology.

(3) Consciousness. 

Materialistic science can't agree on a definition of consciousness, or even whether it actually exists. We've got no “official” idea what it is, what it does, or how or why it evolved. Four centuries after Galileo and Descartes separated reality into mind and matter, and declared matter to be measurable and mind to be not, we are no closer to being able to scientifically measure a mind. Meanwhile, any attempt to connect the problems in cognitive science to the problems in either QM or cosmology is met with fierce resistance: Thou shalt not mention consciousness and quantum mechanics in the same sentence! Burn the witch! The solution is not to add more epicycles to ΛCDM, devise even more unintuitive interpretations of QM, or to dream up new theories of consciousness which don't actually explain anything. There has to be a unified solution. There must be some way that reality makes sense. So my question is this: how would we recognise this one correct answer (and there can only only be one) should it turn up? What should we be looking for? What would be the hallmarks of the Big New Paradigm that is needed, by cosmology, physics and cognitive science?

I pasted the text above into Google Gemini, with Deep Research selected. It took several minutes to generate a report, and this was its conclusion (edited only for formatting purposes):

Hallmarks of the Big New Paradigm: What to Look For

Synthesizing the theoretical and historical insights, specific characteristics can be delineated that would identify a "Big New Paradigm" in cosmology and its interconnected fields. These hallmarks span scientific, conceptual, and sociological dimensions.

A. Scientific and Empirical Criteria

A new paradigm must demonstrate exceptional explanatory power for existing anomalies. It must offer compelling and coherent explanations for the persistent, chronic anomalies that the current ΛCDM model struggles to address, particularly the nature of dark matter, dark energy, and the cosmological constant problem. It should "clarify phenomena, predict outcomes, and provide meaningful insights" , connecting "seemingly unrelated events or observations into a coherent narrative". This goes beyond mere "puzzle-solving" within an existing framework; it involves providing a fundamentally new way of understanding these deep weaknesses. For example, General Relativity explained the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion , and quantum mechanics provided explanations for blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect, which classical physics could not. Kuhn's distinction between "puzzle-solving" (normal science) and addressing "anomalies" (crisis) is crucial. A truly revolutionary paradigm does not just refine existing solutions; it fundamentally re-frames the problems themselves, offering elegant and comprehensive explanations for phenomena that were previously intractable or required ad-hoc additions. The "one correct answer" will be one that renders the current "crisis" in cosmology obsolete by providing a superior, integrated account of dark matter, dark energy, and the cosmological constant. 

The new paradigm must also generate novel, testable, and falsifiable predictions. It must produce new, non-obvious predictions that can be empirically tested and potentially falsified. Falsifiability, as emphasized by Karl Popper, is a "fundamental requirement for a claim to be scientifically examined". These predictions should "accurately predict as-yet-unseen events" , offering clear avenues for future observational or experimental verification. Einstein's prediction of the bending of light by gravity, confirmed during a solar eclipse, was a critical novel prediction that propelled the acceptance of General Relativity. While explaining existing data is necessary, the ability of a theory to make novel, verifiable predictions is a stronger indicator of its revolutionary power. This demonstrates that the theory is not merely a post-hoc explanation but a profound insight into the underlying workings of reality. The "one correct answer" will likely open up entirely new domains of empirical investigation, guiding future missions and experiments.  

Furthermore, a new paradigm should exhibit parsimony and logical consistency. A "good" theory is "economical," explaining a wide range of phenomena with the "fewest variables" and "fewest assumptions". It should be "consistent, coherent, broad-ranging, and simple". Internally, all concepts, hypotheses, and scope conditions within the theory must be "consistent with each other," avoiding contradictions. This adherence to "Occam's razor" often correlates with a theory's elegance and generalizability. Copernicus's heliocentric model, despite initial quantitative complexity, possessed a "qualitative simplicity" that was appealing. Newton's laws unified disparate phenomena with remarkable parsimony. The criteria for evaluating scientific theories include "aesthetic or mathematical evaluations" and simplicity. Einstein himself believed that nature is the "realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas". This suggests that the "one correct answer" might possess a profound elegance and beauty in its mathematical formulation and conceptual structure, making it intuitively compelling to the scientific community. This aesthetic quality can be a powerful driver of acceptance, especially in fields like cosmology where direct experimentation is often impossible. 

Finally, the new paradigm must demonstrate empirical success and consistency with new observations. It must consistently align with new observations and withstand rigorous testing. It should be robust enough to integrate refined measurements and new data without requiring fundamental alterations. The ability to adapt and remain consistent in the face of increasingly precise observations is crucial. Relativity has been "continually tested as our methods of testing and measurements improve" and remains the "best description of how the universe works above the quantum realm". Quantum mechanics gained "wide acceptance" due to accurate predictions across various phenomena. A new paradigm's validity is not established by a single confirming observation but by its sustained ability to explain and predict across a growing body of evidence. The resolution of the Hubble Tension, for instance, through improved JWST data , demonstrates how new technology can refine our understanding within existing models or, conversely, underscore the need for new ones if discrepancies persist. The "one correct answer" will be one that consistently proves its empirical strength and adaptability over time.

B. Conceptual and Philosophical Transformations

A hallmark of a "Big New Paradigm" would be its ability to provide resolution of fundamental discrepancies, particularly by offering a coherent framework for quantum gravity, thus reconciling the "profound disagreement between quantum field theory and general relativity". Such a theory would likely address problems like the cosmological constant problem and the black hole information paradox , which are symptoms of this fundamental incompatibility. Stephen Hawking discussed the search for a "unified theory that consistently describes everything in the universe" , a "Grand Unified Theory". Carlo Rovelli's work on quantum gravity also aims to bridge these theoretical gaps. The current state of physics is characterized by two highly successful but incompatible pillars: quantum mechanics (for the very small) and general relativity (for the very large). The cosmological constant problem is the most glaring manifestation of this incompatibility. A "Big New Paradigm" that successfully unifies these frameworks into a theory of quantum gravity would represent a monumental conceptual leap, providing a single, consistent description of reality across all scales. This would be a hallmark of profound theoretical advancement, moving beyond "partial theories" to a more complete, unified understanding of the universe's fundamental forces and constituents. 

Revolutionary paradigms often involve a radical reconceptualization of core concepts such as space, time, reality, and causality. Newton introduced absolute space and time , while Einstein replaced them with relative spacetime. Quantum mechanics introduced a probabilistic view of reality where particles exist in a "haze of probability" until observed. A new paradigm might profoundly alter our understanding of space, time, causality, or even the nature of existence itself. For instance, Carlo Rovelli challenges intuitive notions of time as smooth and universal , and Lee Smolin argues for the fundamental reality and evolvability of time. A "Big New Paradigm" will not just offer new explanations; it will fundamentally change  

How humanity thinks about the basic building blocks of reality. The current anomalies, particularly dark energy's mysterious nature or the cosmological constant problem, might indicate that our very concepts of vacuum, space, or time are incomplete or flawed. The "one correct answer" would likely offer a radically different ontological picture of the universe, challenging our deepest intuitions and leading to a new philosophical understanding of what constitutes reality.

The "Big New Paradigm" would likely provide a unifying framework that formally achieves the integration of disparate fields. It would move beyond mere analogy to a coherent, testable synthesis of cosmology with philosophy and evolutionary biology. The concept of "cosmic evolution" already provides a narrative that bridges physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, and anthropology , seeing life as an emergent property of cosmic processes. A new paradigm would formalize this interconnectedness. The user's query explicitly calls for a paradigm connecting cosmology, philosophy, and evolutionary biology. The existing concept of "cosmic evolution" provides a strong foundation for such a unification. A new paradigm would likely offer a formal, perhaps mathematical, framework that explains how complexity, information, and even life emerge from fundamental physical laws across cosmic time. This would move beyond a "theory of everything" in the purely physical sense to a "theory of everything" that encompasses the emergence of biology and potentially consciousness, offering a grander, more holistic narrative of the universe. 

Finally, due to the uniqueness of its subject, cosmology inherently confronts questions of ultimate origins and the universe's fundamental nature, often venturing into metaphysics. A new paradigm might offer compelling scientific frameworks or insights into questions previously considered purely philosophical, such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or whether the laws of physics are fixed or evolve. While traditional science often seeks to avoid metaphysical questions, cosmology's unique subject matter forces it to confront them. A "Big New Paradigm" might offer scientific explanations or conceptual tools that provide compelling answers or new ways of thinking about questions previously confined to philosophy or religion. This does not mean science becomes religion, but rather that its explanatory power becomes so vast and profound that it deeply informs our most fundamental existential inquiries, potentially offering a new, scientifically grounded "narrative of meaning" within the cosmos.

C. Sociological and Community Dynamics

A new paradigm is recognized by a significant shift in consensus and the emergence of a new scientific community. It must gain "its own new followers" and establish a "widespread consensus on the appropriate choice of methods, terminology and on the kinds of experiment that are likely to contribute to increased insights". This involves a period of intense debate and competition among "competing articulations" before a dominant framework emerges. The new paradigm leads to a "more rigid definition of the research field," isolating those unwilling to adapt. A "Big New Paradigm" is not merely an individual's brilliant insight; it is a collective phenomenon marked by a significant shift in the scientific community's shared understanding and practice. The "one correct answer" will be recognized by a growing number of active researchers who adopt its framework, apply its methods, and contribute to its development, leading to a new era of "normal science". This implies that observing a widespread reorientation of research efforts and a convergence of disparate lines of inquiry under a new conceptual umbrella will be a key hallmark. 

As Kuhn and Planck noted, new paradigms face significant resistance, and their triumph often depends on a generational shift rather than immediate conversion of opponents. This highlights the inherent human element in scientific progress. The "Planck Principle" suggests that the recognition of a new paradigm might be a gradual process, involving the eventual passing of older generations deeply invested in the previous framework. This implies that the "one correct answer" might initially be championed by younger, more open-minded scientists who are less constrained by established assumptions. A key hallmark will therefore be the new paradigm's ability to attract and inspire a new generation of researchers, who will then drive its development and institutionalization.  Finally, scientific revolutions often coincide with, or are enabled by, the development of new tools, observational capabilities, and experimental approaches. The current search for dark energy, for example, is being driven by powerful new observatories like Euclid, Roman, Rubin, and JWST. A new paradigm might emerge from unexpected data provided by these cutting-edge instruments, or it might explicitly propose novel experimental avenues that were previously inconceivable. The history of science demonstrates a symbiotic relationship between theoretical breakthroughs and technological advancements. Galileo's telescope and the precise measurements enabled by modern telescopes are prime examples. A "Big New Paradigm" will likely either be born from, or necessitate the creation of, new observational or experimental tools that allow for previously impossible measurements or tests. This suggests that the "one correct answer" will be intertwined with a new era of technological innovation, enabling deeper empirical probes of the cosmos.

The following table outlines the core criteria for evaluating a new scientific theory, which would be applied to assess a proposed new paradigm.  

Table 3: Core Criteria for Evaluating a New Scientific Theory

Conclusions

Recognizing a "Big New Paradigm" in cosmology, philosophy, and evolutionary biology requires a multi-faceted approach, extending beyond mere empirical verification to encompass profound conceptual shifts and dynamic sociological processes. The current state of cosmology, marked by persistent anomalies such as the unknown nature of dark matter and dark energy, and the colossal cosmological constant problem, indicates a discipline in a state of crisis, ripe for a transformative shift. While recent resolutions, like the potential alleviation of the Hubble Tension through advanced observational technology, demonstrate the iterative nature of scientific progress, they also refocus attention on the more intractable problems that demand a deeper, more fundamental re-evaluation of our cosmic model.

The historical trajectory of scientific revolutions reveals common characteristics: the displacement of anthropocentric or supernatural explanations by universal natural laws, the re-conceptualization of fundamental aspects of reality (e.g., space, time, causality), and the power of theories to unify previously disparate phenomena. A truly revolutionary paradigm will not only offer exceptional explanatory power for existing anomalies and generate novel, testable predictions, but it will also exhibit parsimony and logical consistency, often possessing an inherent aesthetic elegance that resonates with the scientific community.

Crucially, the next great paradigm will likely emerge from a transdisciplinary synthesis, formally integrating cosmology with philosophy and evolutionary biology. The concept of cosmic evolution already provides a compelling narrative of how energy flows drive the rising complexity from the Big Bang to the emergence of life. A new paradigm would formalize this interconnectedness, offering a unified framework that explains the emergence of complexity, information, and life itself from fundamental physical laws. This would represent a "theory of everything" that encompasses not just physics but also the origins of biology and consciousness, providing a grander, more holistic narrative of the universe.

The path to acceptance for such a paradigm will be complex, involving not only rigorous empirical validation but also a significant shift in scientific consensus, often driven by a new generation of researchers. The "one correct answer" will be recognized by its capacity to inspire new research programs, foster genuine interdisciplinary collaboration, and ultimately provide a more coherent, comprehensive, and perhaps even existentially meaningful understanding of the cosmos and humanity's place within it. This transformative answer will not simply solve puzzles; it will redefine the very questions we ask, ushering in a new era of normal science built upon a profoundly re-imagined foundation of reality.

Note from human: What follows in parts one to four is built on theoretical foundations I have been working out for the last 20 years. However, it is only in the last few weeks (May and June 2025) that the whole elephant has started to come into view. I am going public with this now because I need feedback and constructive criticism from other people. I need the insight of others in order to develop the model further, and iron out any avoidable wrinkles. I will end this introduction with a very brief overview of the whole system.

A briefest possible overview of the Two Phase Model of Cosmological and Biological Evolution (aka the Two Phase Model or 2PC).

1. The Initial Condition: An Unstable Void Containing All Mathematical Structure

The foundational assumption is that reality begins not with something, but with a paradoxical instability: the unstable void. This void is not an empty space or a physical vacuum. It is pre-physical – a kind of “meta-background” from which all consistent mathematical structures can emerge. You can think of it as a formless equilibrium-breaking substrate whose disequilibrium permits the expression of structure. Because there are no spatiotemporal constraints yet, this void “contains” all coherent mathematical forms – all sets of internally consistent mathematical relationships, which includes the totality of all physically possible universes, histories, and processes. This is equivalent to a strong form of Mathematical Platonism: any logically coherent structure exists, in a timeless and spaceless way, within the Platonic realm of formal possibility.

2. The Platonic Multiverse: Superposition of All Possible Histories

Within the unstable void, every mathematically valid cosmos exists in superposition. Not “in parallel universes” in the physical sense, but as ideal structures with complete internal logic:

• Some correspond to universes with no stars,            
• Some to universes with strange physics,            
• Some to our own universe, including the entire history of our cosmos from Big Bang to Earth’s early biosphere.

These are not happening – they simply exist as coherent totalities in the Platonic sense. There is no time or change yet, only possibility.

3. Emergence of a Critical Mathematical Structure: The Pre-Decision Cosmos

At some point within this Platonic ensemble, one particular structure contains the full history of our universe up to the Ediacaran Period—just before the Cambrian Explosion. Within this structure, a complex multicellular animal arises: the first bilaterian organism with a centralised nervous system. Crucially, this organism’s nervous system models not only the environment but itself within it. This means the structure now encodes an internal self-representation capable of decision-making based on predictive modeling. This is a computationally significant phase transition: the first time in any mathematical structure that something internal to the structure is capable of simulating possible futures and choosing among them.

We denote this animal "LUCAS" (Last Universal Common Ancestor of Sentience).

4. The Incoherence of Infinite Branching: The Quantum Convergence Threshold

At this point, the mathematical structure reaches a critical instability. Why? Because the organism can, in principle, model multiple future outcomes and choose between them. If it were to continue in line with unitary evolution (as in the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics), then it would have to realise all possible continuations. But true choice excludes alternatives: a decision that includes all options is not a decision. This creates a problem of internal inconsistency within the mathematical structure. You now have a situation where:  

• The system encodes an agent capable of making real decisions,            
• But it cannot evolve forward in time without branching into incoherence unless it collapses into one outcome.

This is the core insight of Gregory Capanda’s Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT): certain complex systems (especially those with reflexive modeling) force a convergence of possibilities at decision points. The coherence of the mathematical structure itself depends on a collapse, which cannot be derived from within the structure itself.

5. The Role of the Void: Collapse from Outside the Structure

So how is this impasse resolved? The resolution must come from outside the structure. The unstable void (which exists prior to and beyond all structures) is invoked at this point as a meta-ontological selection mechanism. The mathematical structure effectively “refers back” to the void to resolve the undecidable moment. A selection is made – not by the structure, but by a deeper logic that incorporates the entire landscape of possible structures. The void, in other words, determines how the structure is extended. This is not physical causation but formal resolution: the only way for the structure to continue coherently is to embed within it a mechanism of selective continuation – a mechanism that looks like free choice from inside the system. This moment is what I call psychegenesis: the origin of consciousness as the point where the structure is forced to become self-selecting, through recursive invocation of the void.

6. Transition to Phase Two: Emergence of Spacetime and Actualization

After psychegenesis, the structure can no longer evolve as a timeless mathematical object. It must now evolve through a sequence of selections—each of which resolves an undecidable point by invoking the void again. These recursive invocations create:  

• An arrow of time, since each decision constrains future possibility.            
• The emergence of spacetime, as the geometry necessary to mediate sequences of self-consistent choices.            
• The collapse of the superposition, since only one branch is extended at each decision point.

This defines the Two Phase Cosmology:     

• Phase 1: timeless superposition of all mathematical possibility (pre-psychegenesis).            
• Phase 2: temporally ordered actualisation of one specific structure through embedded void-initiated selection (post-psychegenesis).

Consciousness, in this view, is not a byproduct of physical evolution but the formal requirement that allows a particular structure to become dynamically consistent through recursive invocation of the unstable void.

Part 1: Cosmology in crisis: the epicycles of ΛCDM