Let me present to you an interesting thought experiment: Can you think of any hypothetical set of results of past experiments on matter that would have been totally satisfying, such that we’d know that we fully understand what matter is to its core? It seems that, no matter what happens—possibly as a result of our modes of investigation or of the very way our minds work—there must always be further questions, smaller and smaller levels at which we can break things down to discover new, more fundamental truths about matter.
First we discovered physical substances weren’t continuous all the way down but rather made of atoms, but what are atoms made of? We discovered they’re made of subatomic particles—electrons, protons, and neutrons—but what are those made of? We discovered protons and neutrons are made of quarks, and now we’re wondering whether quarks are made of anything more fundamental. It seemingly never ends as we go further and further down the rabbit hole. (See also https://exalumen.blog/2018/04/13/notes-on-science-scientism-mysticism-religion-logic-physicalism-skepticism-etc/#Reductionism.)
So, given this strange scenario in which the truth behind material objects can never be complete, as there’s always a more fundamental level that you can look at, is it possible that these further and further levels of truth about the world don’t already exist somewhere in reality, but are made up as we go along? What if the results of experiments done for the first time tend to conform to the expectations of the observers, which are themselves wild guesses or rationalizations to explain what they’ve already seen? What if the principles of general relativity, quantum field theory, and nuclear physics were originally rationalizations by individual scientists or groups of scientists made up as the only ways they could think of to explain certain experimental results (which themselves had been the results of expectations), and then, once those truths are established, all subsequent experiments automatically yield similar results? In the book ‘Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Knew About Quantum Physics is Different’, Philip Ball says,
Quantum theory had the strangest genesis. Its pioneers made it up as they went along. What else could they do? It was a new kind of physics – they couldn’t deduce it from the old variety, although they were able nonetheless to commandeer a surprising amount of traditional physics and math. They cobbled old concepts and methods together into new forms that were often nothing much more than a wild guess at what kind of equation or mathematics might do the job.
It is extraordinary how these hunches and suppositions about very specific, even recondite, phenomena in physics cohered into a theory of such scope, precision and power. Far too little is made of this when the subject is taught, either as science or as history. The student is (certainly this student was) presented with the mathematical machinery as though it were a result of rigorous deduction and decisive experiment. No one tells you that it often lacks any justification beyond the mere (and obviously important) fact that it works.
There’s a popular theory by Rupert Sheldrake called morphic resonance, in which anything that happens anywhere makes it subsequently easier or more likely for it to happen the same way elsewhere. According to Sheldrake, scientists have discovered that, once a particular kind of crystal was grown in a lab anywhere on Earth, it subsequently become easier or faster to grow the same crystal elsewhere. And, he claimed, a similar phenomenon exists with rats solving mazes. Once a rat solves a particular maze in a particular lab, other rats in other labs solve the same maze in much quicker time. (See also https://exalumen.blog/2019/09/14/how-were-looking-at-instinct-wrong/.)
All of physics—or, more to the point, the reason there’s order in the universe, the reason physics is apparently the same everywhere—could boil down to / be explained by morphic resonance. Of course, the leads to the question of why some physics apparently existed already (as there was apparently a world before observers, apparently operating according to some physical system, in order to even give rise to observers in the first place) while other parts of physics were left to be defined by humans. I think the answer is that consciousness has always existed, as a fundamental aspect of the universe (see https://exalumen.blog/2020/02/07/why-im-an-idealist/), so consciousness could easily have been the origin of all physical principles. (Of course, the idea that consciousness is somehow fundamental to the universe seems implied already by my idea that experimental results could somehow be affected by conscious expectation, because how else would consciousness have such power?)
Another question this theory raises is, why would our own creations of physical principles on our little planet in our little galaxy instantly affect all of the universe? Aren’t there/have there been other intelligent species out there in the universe who would also be discovering/creating experimental results? The answer could be that reality prevents us from meeting other beings whose realities are too different from ours, at least in a very up-close and personal manner, and/or that when we do, we assimilate the differences into our own reality, possibly affecting them in turn, and they do the same with us. It would be similar to experiences people have had while exploring other countries, such as their medical understanding of the heart being of a completely different shape, or their fingers becoming longer while in transit, presumably to match the understood biology of the other culture. I wrote more about this here https://www.quora.com/When-I-look-at-the-Sun-its-a-light-gray-with-a-white-slither-sliding-around-it-Why-is-it-always-depicted-as-yellow/answer/Richard-A-Nichols-III and here https://exalumen.blog/2024/11/08/fun-and-liberation/.
Another question this theory raises is, how is it that, after having discovered all these physical principles, they so coherently explain so many things that have existed since way before we discovered said principles, such as in geology, biology, the study of planets, stars, nebula, the cosmic background radiation, etc., etc. I think to some degree, these things were already mechanistic and adhered to certain principles of causal development, and our science merely fills in the details and makes them more specific.
Also, based on my own personal experiences and more, it seems that the past is actually something that is, or is partially, created in the moment to suit our purposes and/or to fit our expectations. When you’ve already witnessed something from the past, whether directly or indirectly, it seems to be stuck in place, but when you haven’t, it seems to be more up in the air.
I’ve also written more about this here https://iyaelsorai.wordpress.com/2026/03/01/dehumanizing-ideation/.
