Re-enchanting the Universe
Reading | Metaphysics
James Glattfelder, PhD | 2025-03-21
With humanity at a crossroads, we are invited to ponder a novel vision of existence that inspires wonder and ethical accountability. A radical and groundbreaking perspective emerges, challenging conventional beliefs by placing consciousness at the foundation of reality. In this essay, Dr. Glattfelder delves into some ideas meticulously researched and carefully presented in his latest book, The Sapient Cosmos: What a Modern-Day Synthesis of Science and Philosophy Teaches Us About the Emergence of Information, Consciousness, and Meaning, published by Essentia Books.
As the proverb goes, “May you live in interesting times.” Indeed, we are truly living in remarkable times. On the one hand, human ingenuity has unleashed technological marvels that seem almost magical. Quantum computers are tapping into the fundamental fabric of reality while artificial intelligence is conjured up from within our digital circuits. We are witnessing rapid technological advancements that far surpass what was once deemed possible.
At the same time, our current era is defined by deeply troubling crises: the unfolding ecocide, the acceleration of economic inequality, the deterioration of social cohesion, the rise of entrenched ideologies, and the rejection of a shared reality in a post-truth world that weaponizes ignorance and incites outrage. As a result, we appear to be descending into a dystopian future defined by disillusionment, despair, and existential anxiety, where solace is often sought in numbing consumerism or fleeting distractions like endless social media scrolling.
How can this be? How can human intelligence uncover such profound knowledge about the nature of reality, unlocking seemingly god-like powers, yet fail so dramatically in creating a global society characterized by sustainability, meaning, and happiness? Put bluntly, why doesn’t individual human intelligence translate into collective, intelligent human behavior?
Bad Philosophy
We pride ourselves on being commonsensical beings. However, beneath the veneer of rationality lurk idiosyncratic assumptions about the nature of existence that transcend reason. These are metaphysical beliefs that shape our perception of reality and inform our behaviors.
Traditionally, theology addressed humanity’s yearning for a greater understanding of itself and its place in the cosmos. The emergence of the Abrahamic religions codified a specific metaphysical framework centered around an external authority. All the specifications were detailed in texts understood to be final and unchanging. Today, this explanatory template informs the core beliefs of over half the human population.
Building upon the Scientific Revolution’s foundations, the Enlightenment implicitly adopted a very different metaphysical outlook. The universe was now understood as a giant clockwork, and by analyzing its tiniest components, it was believed that everything could be understood. By dispelling cultural myths and religious convictions, science began its grand quest to uncover knowledge. This triumphal rise was made possible by the discovery of reality’s machine code: mathematics. By translating the quantifiable aspects of the physical world into abstract, formal representations hosted within the human mind, reality could be decoded in seemingly miraculous ways. To this day, increasing mathematical abstraction continues to unlock ever-deeper insights into the innerworkings of nature.
Regrettably, it is a fateful fact that physicists almost unanimously ignore the philosophical implications of their work. This attitude is epitomized by the rallying cry, “Shut up and calculate!” and the quip that the philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. This is a remarkable situation, given that science deals exclusively with nature’s workings and not with its fundamental essence. By definition, metaphysics begins where physics ends. So, while the former inquires about the “how,” the latter contemplates the “what.”
As a result, most scientists unwittingly adopt a metaphysical outlook that is hardly ever scrutinized, called physicalism. This is the assumption that everything in existence is ultimately physical and solely dependent on physical interactions. In essence, physicalism is a commitment to reality’s mind-independent nature, which can be understood reductionistically. Such an implicit metaphysical belief informs most scientifically minded people. This, however, is a category mistake, as it conflates the descriptive scope of science with a metaphysical claim about the ultimate nature of reality.
We thus witness the prevalence of two main currents of thought shaping our understanding of existence. On the one hand, physicalism claims that the universe, with all its manifestations, is inherently random and meaningless, implying a sense of cosmic nihilism. Any purpose we discern results from wishful thinking, and we need to be mature enough to accept this fact. On the other hand, many religions offer static categorical claims, often implying a hierarchical cosmos governed by a divine plan that is ultimately beyond human comprehension.
It is easy to imagine Max Weber’s “disenchantment of the world” applying equally to the rigidity and finality of many religious claims—which can stifle intellectual curiosity—and to the mechanistic outlook of physicalism—which often hinders any engagement with the deeper mysteries of existence. Moreover, what is missing in both metaphysical frameworks is the primacy of consciousness. Its emergence is either dismissed as a mere fluke or subordinated to an obscure divine authority. Yet, consciousness lies at the very center of our experiential cosmos. After all, we perceive both the world and ourselves solely through the lens of consciousness.
Could this be the root of the malaise plaguing the world today? Is the widespread adoption of metaphysical beliefs that neglect the importance of consciousness the source of our collective sense of dissatisfaction and alienation, leading to cruel and destructive behaviors? In other words, is bad philosophy to be blamed for the global deterioration of our shared humanity?
Re-Enchantment
In 1894, the physicist Albert A. Michelson confidently proclaimed that all the “grand underlying principles” had been discovered and understood. There was little motivation for the rational-minded individual to ponder alternatives to the predominant physicalist assumptions. Everything seemed clear; the cosmos was a deterministic system, fully knowable to the human mind.
Alas, the year 1905 changed everything. Five years after Max Planck accidentally discovered the mathematical hints pointing to the quantum realm, Albert Einstein provided definitive evidence of its reality. This discovery would later win him the Nobel Prize. That same year, Einstein revealed two more earth-shattering insights into the workings of nature, further unveiling its unexpectedly bizarre character.
The theory of special relativity explained light’s constant speed by redefining the very fabric of reality. The flow of time was now rendered an observer-dependent enigma, and the concept of events happening simultaneously lost all meaning. As a further consequence, energy and matter were shown to be equivalent, a principle formalized in the most famous equation of all time, ushering in the Atomic Age.
To this day, physicists have not recovered from these metaphysical blows. Indeed, the situation has become even more dire. The following technical terms describe some of the quantum phenomena that appear to transcend our human cognitive capabilities: superposition, complementarity, uncertainty, tunneling, non-locality, decoherence, and contextuality. These are all aspects of reality, suggesting a ghostlike, intangible, contradictory, constrained, but fundamentally interconnected metaphysical essence underlying the seemingly physical world.
Even the notion of matter itself appears questionable. Zooming into a proton reveals a structure that defies coherence: a teeming sea of subatomic particles and antiparticles is glimpsed, briefly flashing into existence before annihilating each other. More surprisingly, the simple notion of empty space—described by the concept of the quantum vacuum—is far more dynamic, energetic, and mysterious than one would expect.
Then, at cosmic scales, the universe assembles large-scale structures that challenge our understanding of how gravity shapes the cosmos. Moreover, we remain unable to discern the nature of nearly 95% of the universe’s content, and modern theories suggest that space and time may not be fundamental at all but instead emergent properties of a deeper underlying structure.
It seems as if the hallmarks of physicalism—rationality, common sense, and logic—are not concepts reality is very concerned about. Indeed, they seem to reflect naive, wishful thinking in the face of metaphysical challenges that radically defy any intuitive understanding. It is thus a very remarkable twist of fate that our limited metaphysical imagination does not prevent us from accurately describing, predicting, and manipulating nature through the mathematical frameworks of modern physics, continually unleashing technological advancements that reshape our world.
Another glaring blind spot of physicalism lies in its inability to account for emergence organization in the cosmos. Unsurprisingly, science remains mostly silent on the reasons behind the unfathomable complexity we see around us and within us. This pocket of order we inhabit, stubbornly persisting in a sea of entropic decay, appears particularly bewildering. The mechanistic response is to shrug and proclaim this as yet another brute fact, simply a random coincidence with no meaning. Yet, one cannot help but wonder whether the self-organizing structure formation we observe throughout the universe is guided by an as-yet-undetected force shaping its evolution. Such a perspective would suggest teleology, a cosmic purpose, a notion strictly prohibited under physicalism.
However, the greatest challenge to the physicalist worldview lies in the mere existence of consciousness. It is a remarkable historical fact that the academic inquiry into the enigma of consciousness only started to emerge in the mid-1990s. Indeed, to this day, our best definition of what consciousness essentially is goes back to a question the philosopher Thomas Nagel asked in 1974: What is it like to be a bat?
This focus on the experiential aspect of consciousness—what it is like to be something—was brought to the forefront of the philosophy of mind by David Chalmers in 1994, when he introduced the “hard problem of consciousness.” In contrast, the easy problem tries to explain the mechanisms of cognition, such as perception and memory, via physical processes in the brain. While this is a very hard challenge, it should, in principle, be possible to solve.
The hard problem, however, targets our core metaphysical beliefs and has initiated a tidal wave of research. To this day, its repercussions are still being felt, creating an irreconcilable schism within academic circles. In a nutshell, the hard problem asks how inanimate and insentient matter can coalesce and give rise to subjective experiences. In other words, how does a first-person perspective emerge in the universe? Over thirty years after Chalmers posed the problem, some things are clear: either consciousness is not what it seems to be, or reality is not what it seems to be. We find ourselves having to navigate treacherous metaphysical terrain.
In response, the physicalists adopted the former perspective: consciousness must not be what it seems to be. Now, the rational and commonsensical individual is forced to question the very thing we are most familiar with: our own consciousness. The resulting paradigm shift diminishes the significance of consciousness, viewing it as merely an inconsequential byproduct of physical processes. Epiphenomenalism, eliminativism, or illusionism are just some of the technical terms used to describe this supposed error we make in believing that consciousness is more than just “a bag of tricks.” By denying the efficacy of consciousness, such perspectives effectively eliminate the hard problem.
Other scholars wonder if we perhaps misjudged the nature of reality. Could consciousness play a more fundamental role than we assume? While a reclassification of consciousness is radical, redefining the nature of reality is extreme. Nonetheless, some prominent neuroscientists and philosophers propose just that. The notion of panpsychism claims that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous. This idea goes back to ancient Greek thinkers. By adding intrinsically mental properties to the physical, the hard problem is circumvented. However, some scholars dare to take one final radical step in reconceptualizing reality’s foundation.
Idealism posits that reality is fundamentally and exclusively mental. In other words, it claims that consciousness is the essence of existence, with everything physical being derived from a ground of purely transpersonal, aperspectival, and unconditioned consciousness. Such a metaphysical outlook greatly dismays the physicalists. Nonetheless, idealism is seeing a renaissance in scholarly circles, and a new generation of philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup, Miri Albahari, and James Tartaglia are at the forefront of this paradigm shift, while others appear sympathetic to the enterprise, such as Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes and Jussi Jylkkä.
Idealism is impossible to grasp rationally [Editor’s note: Essentia Foundation disagrees strongly with this assertion, in that we hold the view that rational and empirically-grounded argument is sufficient to substantiate idealism]. However, it is a perspective that can be fully experienced and always has been. Since the dawning of the human mind, people have encountered immaterial levels of reality firsthand, either spontaneously or deliberately. We have many reports of shamans, mystics, meditators, and psychonauts who have documented their transcendental explorations in great detail. They are all daring navigators of otherworldly realms, explorers of a multiverse of pure experience. Some of these individuals insist on having glimpsed this foundational field of awareness underlying all existence.
Nonetheless, idealism still faces much opposition. Science has traditionally been confined to a desiccated third-person perspective, deeming lived subjectivity essentially irrelevant. As a result, the notion of a primal experiential foundation of reality seems deeply problematic. Similarly, institutionalized monotheistic religions favor dogmatic interpretations over the lived traditions of their mystical schools. They invoke a divine authority external to the cosmos, transcending the human mind. Claiming the primacy of consciousness should, therefore, be considered heretical and sacrilegious—human hubris, possibly incited by a deceitful and tempting demonic influence. Interestingly, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and Sufism emphasize the direct, firsthand experience of the divine within one’s own consciousness.
Defying all doubts, the emergence of modern conceptions of idealism offers us a compelling alternative: an enchanted universe is unveiled. On the horizon, the contours of a new metaphysical narrative are coming into focus: a perspective in which consciousness is fundamental, and the often-ignored existential implications of fundamental physics are taken seriously.
A Vision of Scientific Spirituality
The human mind’s capacity to generate theoretical knowledge has uncovered many intimate details of how nature operates. However, by embracing the potential of experiential knowledge, we can probe reality to an even deeper degree. The notion of empirical metaphysics promises direct access to the true pillars of creation. Anyone brave enough to go beyond the comforting familiarity of consensus reality can glean insights into the essence of existence. In the words of the psychologist and philosopher William James, reflecting on his psychedelic experiences with nitrous oxide:
One conclusion was forced upon my mind at the time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the flimsiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. […] No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded.1
By accepting that existence extends beyond the constraints of the seemingly physical, we are invited to reevaluate and reimagine our deepest metaphysical beliefs.
Ervin László, a pioneering complexity scientist, at the age of over 80, not too long ago asked us to entertain the possibility
That there is an intelligence behind the things that exist in the universe, that there is purpose exhibited by this intelligence, and that it is humanly possible to access some elements of this intelligence and learn some aspects of its purpose.2
László wrote these words in the foreword to LSD and the Mind of the Universe: Diamonds from Heaven by the philosopher of religion Christopher Bache. The book chronicles a 20-year journey into the experiential multiverse facilitated by 73 high-dose LSD sessions. Bache’s radical commitment can be understood as a foundational contribution to the nascent philosophy of psychedelics.
Against this experiential backdrop, spirituality can simply be understood as a willingness to engage with the dimensions of one’s own consciousness and the realities that can be found within it. In this sense, it is an invitation to an open-minded, non-dogmatic exploration of existence, accessible through introspection and cultivating self-awareness. By recognizing the interconnectedness of all phenomena inspired by an adoption of idealism, a great transformative potential emerges, fostering kinship and compassion.
Rediscovering ourselves at the center of our own experienceable universe is a truly empowering realization. A realization that makes us fully accountable for our actions. Crucially, we are not only invited to create meaning, but also to recognize the meaning inherent in the world. By practicing mindfulness and exercising symbolic cognition, we can become attuned to the synchronicities unfolding around us according to archetypal principles—the primal templates of order.
We are truly living in a brave new world marked by unprecedented potential, yet shadowed by grave uncertainty. Future utopias or dystopias are possibly only separated by a thought, an idea able to replicate and spread in our minds, resulting in collective intelligent human behavior.
Could we be missing a fundamental truth about ourselves and the cosmos, the discovery of which would change everything?
For the first time in history, we have the opportunity to embrace a unified vision of existence—one that fuses science, philosophy, and a lived spirituality. By adopting the metaphysics of idealism, a novel explanatory context for fundamental physics becomes possible—one that can inspire a profound sense of cosmic meaning, purpose, and wonder. Are we bold enough to place our consciousness at the center of our understanding of reality? Can humanity thus chart a course toward a future nurturing compassion and respect for one another and all living things?
What path will we choose?
Notes
1 Quoted from James, W. (1902) The Varieties of Religious Experience, New York, Longmans, Green & Co., p. 387.
2 László quoted from Bache, C.M. (2019) LSD and the Mind of the Universe: Diamonds from Heaven, Rochester, Park Street Press, p. xi.
Resources
See jth.ch/tsc for further details. Watch Consciousness Studies.
Essentia Foundation communicates, in an accessible but rigorous manner, the latest results in science and philosophy that point to the mental nature of reality. We are committed to strict, academic-level curation of the material we publish.
Recently published
|
In 2018, Professor Etzel Cardeña, PhD, published a landmark review paper surveying thousands of psi studies in “American Psychologist,” one of psychology’s most respected journals. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Cardeña explains his main findings and why a dismissal of psi without looking at the data is “as unscientific as you can get.” Cardeña’s conclusion is that the cumulative evidence for psi phenomena is so strong that outright dismissal is no longer scientifically justified.
|
Harry Stolting argues that, while nature automatically excludes all that is unsustainable within its own natural dynamic, the human mind can create and maintain within itself maladaptive ideas that, if expressed in nature, would quickly be driven out. This leads to a mismatch between our inner concepts and the reality whereupon we believe we can apply those concepts. This schism between nature and our mental models, Stolting argues, is not only the origin of evil, but of many other ills.
From the archives
|
Moreira invites us into a long meditation on the meaning of digital spaces, and the possibility of finding another in the endless cacophony of simulacra. When you reach across the screen—he says—you do not know if the figure you address is real or fabricated, friend or phantom. The temptation is to strike first, to treat them as less than a person. But if there is even the chance of an Other on the far side, the only way to preserve meaning is to extend recognition before certainty. In the digital void, kindness is the only bridge that can survive simulation.
|
Dr. Nicolas Rouleau is a neuroscientist, bioengineer, and Assistant Professor of Health Sciences at Wilfrid Laurier University. He wrote the award-winning essay, ‘An Immortal Stream of Consciousness: The scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness after permanent bodily death,’ in which he argues that the transmissive theory of consciousness may actually be more consistent with emerging scientific insights than the dominant assumption that the brain generates consciousness. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Rouleau shares the main arguments from his essay, which touch upon his collaboration with Dr. Michael Persinger, the inventor of the ‘God Helmet,’ and his work with Michael Levin on ‘mind blindness’—the idea that science may be searching for mind in too restricted a place by focusing almost exclusively on neurons.
|
The search for authenticity fails because we conduct it in the wrong place: thought itself. The epistemic gap—the inability of concepts to capture experiential reality—produces the persistent sense that something fundamental about existence is amiss, a tension that underlies much existential questioning. When representations are mistaken for reality, three pervasive forms of suffering follow: fear of death, violence, and pride. Each dissolves when the error is recognized. But recognition alone fades; only sustained disengagement from conceptual identification makes the insight a lived experience, argues Steven Pashko.
Reading
Essays
|
Dr. Koch argues that, because AI computers have a feed-forward structure very reminiscent of the human cerebellum—which is empirically known not to be involved in human consciousness—we have no reason to expect AI computers to have a conscious inner life of their own. He further substantiates his argument with the clear, quantified prediction of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) that systems with low integrated information, such as silicon computers implementing Large Language Models, do not feel like anything from the inside.
|
Prof. Karl Friston is the most cited neuroscientist in the world, renowned for pioneering the framework of active inference and for developing the influential Free Energy Principle (FEP). In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Friston touches on the metaphysics of his FEP, which surprisingly points to non-dualism instead of materialism, as widely assumed. According to Friston, space and time, the self, and even the FEP itself are mere stories, useful fictions with real explanatory power, which do not give us direct access to the noumenal reality.
|
Moreira invites us into a long meditation on the meaning of digital spaces, and the possibility of finding another in the endless cacophony of simulacra. When you reach across the screen—he says—you do not know if the figure you address is real or fabricated, friend or phantom. The temptation is to strike first, to treat them as less than a person. But if there is even the chance of an Other on the far side, the only way to preserve meaning is to extend recognition before certainty. In the digital void, kindness is the only bridge that can survive simulation.
|
Dr. Nicolas Rouleau is a neuroscientist, bioengineer, and Assistant Professor of Health Sciences at Wilfrid Laurier University. He wrote the award-winning essay, ‘An Immortal Stream of Consciousness: The scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness after permanent bodily death,’ in which he argues that the transmissive theory of consciousness may actually be more consistent with emerging scientific insights than the dominant assumption that the brain generates consciousness. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Rouleau shares the main arguments from his essay, which touch upon his collaboration with Dr. Michael Persinger, the inventor of the ‘God Helmet,’ and his work with Michael Levin on ‘mind blindness’—the idea that science may be searching for mind in too restricted a place by focusing almost exclusively on neurons.
|
The search for authenticity fails because we conduct it in the wrong place: thought itself. The epistemic gap—the inability of concepts to capture experiential reality—produces the persistent sense that something fundamental about existence is amiss, a tension that underlies much existential questioning. When representations are mistaken for reality, three pervasive forms of suffering follow: fear of death, violence, and pride. Each dissolves when the error is recognized. But recognition alone fades; only sustained disengagement from conceptual identification makes the insight a lived experience, argues Steven Pashko.
Seeing
Videos
|
Anil Seth is a world-leading neuroscientist who has made important contributions to our understanding of reality as a controlled hallucination. According to the concept of active inference, our perception of reality is not a direct reflection of the world but, instead, the most accurate guess that our brain can muster, which it continually checks and updates with incoming sensory information. But strange things happen when neuroscientists play around with sensory input in unexpected ways. Anil Seth and his team at Sussex University created the Dream Machine, a stroboscopic device that syncs flickering light to music to induce vivid, often complex, hallucinatory visuals in the viewer. In group sessions, exactly the same white light and music gives rise to a tremendous diversity in perception.
|
Prof. Larry Nazareth recounts the fundamental difference in perspective that underlies the Cartesian and Bergsonian views of life and world. The former’s dictum states: ‘I compute, algorithmically, therefore I think, symbolically, therefore I am, experientially.’ The latter, however, reverses this dictum: ‘I am, experientially, therefore I think, symbolically, therefore I compute, algorithmically.’ Depending on which of these views we choose to base our understanding of nature and life, we may or may not have a future, Nazareth argues.
|
How is it possible that the cerebellum, which contains roughly 80% of all the neurons in the human brain, can be severely damaged, or even absent, without abolishing consciousness? In this conversation, Jeremiah Hendren, a member of the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) Lab and long-term collaborator of IIT founder Giulio Tononi, joins Hans Busstra to unpack Integrated Information Theory (IIT), a theory that answers this fascinating neuroscience mystery.
Let us build the future of our culture together
Essentia Foundation is a registered non-profit committed to making its content as accessible as possible. Therefore, we depend on non-financial contributions from people like you to continue to do our work.
