PreprintPDF Available

Non-Duality, Trinity, Quinternity, Unity

March 2021

Authors:

Robert W. Boyer

Park Hensley

MIU.edu

Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Content uploaded by Robert W. Boyer

Content may be subject to copyright.

Non-Duality, Trinity, Quinternity, Unity

RW Boyer and Park Hensley

Abstract

This paper summarizes progress in theoretical physics toward a more unified view of nature,

and shows that this progress inexorably is linking to the ancient holistic account of Veda.

The Vedic account addresses key dilemmas still widely considered needing to be resolved.

The 10 Mandalas of Rk Veda – non-duality, trinity, quinternity, unity (10th to 1st) – integrate

force fields in quantum and cosmological theories with the holistic 3-in-1 Vedic model of

gross local relativistic spacetime, subtle nonlocal spacetime, and infinite unified field. *

Key words: Locality, Planck scale, nonlocality, unified field, Veda, consciousness, non-duality

Introduction

Modern science rigorously pursues total knowledge of the laws of nature. Its primary methods

are reasoning and ordinary sensory experience from the objective third-person perspective. Total

knowledge is also pursued in the ancient Vedic knowledge tradition, emphasizing the subjective

first-person empirical perspective. This paper proposes that the third-person perspective has

advanced modern scientific understanding to the stage where first-person direct means to gain

knowledge is being recognized as useful to address long-standing dilemmas about matter and mind.

The focus in objective science has been on reductive analysis of sensory objects, probing smaller

and smaller time and distance scales and higher energy and temperature states to uncover the most

fundamental constituents of nature. The range of scales can be summarized as follows:

Ultra-macroscopic levels ~cosmic expanse to Infinity?

Macroscopic levels ~10–3 cm to ~cosmic expanse

Microscopic levels ~10–4 to ~10–8 cm

Ultra-microscopic levels ~10–9 to ~10–33 cm (Planck length)

Unified field level ~Infinitesimal point to Infinity?

However, the resolving power of our ordinary senses for direct observation is quite limited. The

wavelength of visible light, for example, is in the range of 10–4 cm, too wide to observe directly

anything smaller than a cell. Observation has been extended with the aid of equipment such as

electron microscopes to about 10-8 cm, still much larger than atomic nuclei. But research now has

gone beyond tangible empirical evidence using unaided and aided direct observation. Indirect

experimental methods are now regularly used, the results of which are macroscopic phenomena

observed by the ordinary human senses that are predicted by and dependent upon models of

theorized ultra-microscopic, unobservable layers of nature. In physics, one prominent indirect

method uses particle accelerators. The most powerful is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN

near Geneva, Switzerland, with the capability to probe to about 10-19 cm. However, energy levels

needed in order to probe the theorized tiniest scales are still far greater even than these most

powerful instruments available (Boyer, 2008, 2021).

*Content in this paper has been drawn from books by R.W. Boyer: Pointless: The reality behind quantum theory

(Routledge publication, 2021) and Bridge to Unity: Unified field-based science and spirituality (2008).

Another indirect method is to search for remnants that may support predictions of events near the

time of the ‘big bang.’ These cosmological methods address ultra-macroscopic research on gravity

and the shape of the cosmos, while particle accelerators mainly address ultra-microscopic research.

Applying indirect methods such as these, research involving theorized independent external

probes has the additional concern that at extremely small scales the objects investigated can be

significantly altered by the probing and measuring processes. Analyses of theorized events at smaller

scales than are perceivable through the ordinary unaided or aided senses increasingly depend upon

conceptions of what the process of measurement means. As research progresses from tangible

observable objects to more abstract unobservable objects and processes, reasoning and logical

consistency are necessarily relied upon more than ordinary macroscopic sensory experience.

One major change from classical to quantum physics is that these issues are now recognized in

the measurement problem and in trying to understand the role of the observer in measurement.

Inevitably, assumptions about the nature of the object of investigation, probes and the process of

observing, and also the observer now must be considered in investigating these theorized objects.

Deeper intuitive presuppositions and assumptions that underpin quantum theory (QT) and that

delimit measurement processes now must be given more careful consideration in this research. There

is now deeper appreciation that beliefs and assumptions affect how empirical results and ‘facts’ are

interpreted, as well as what experiments are deemed worth conducting.

To protect against unreliable sensory and reasoning processes in the scientific investigators, the

objective approach relies on consensual validation about how experimental results are evaluated.

Though given little consideration in the history of modern science, it is slowly but increasingly

recognized that it also depends on the level of functioning of contributors to the consensus.

Reasoning and ordinary experience are common processes of the ordinary waking state. This state is

a representational or reflective mode of knowing, characterized by experience of a fundamental

separation or duality of the inner conscious observer and independent outer objects. It is the

phenomenological basis for the assumption of the independence of observed and observer that is

fundamental to the ‘objective’ scientific method. Logically, it must eventually give way to a deeper

unity in scientific progress toward a single, completely unified field (Boyer, 2008, 2021).

Although experiencing nature as separate from the observer is assumed to be ‘given by nature,’ it

is rather that this dualistic view of subject-object independence is imposed upon nature via the

observer’s ordinary waking state experiences. Given this epistemological framework, it is not

surprising that the methodology in modern science is fundamentally fragmented into subject/object

independence, associated with mind/matter duality. As investigations have gone from macroscopic

tangible localized matter to underlying abstract nonlocal fields, however, the interdependence of

object and observer is now being acknowledged – toward deeper integration and unification.

The Vedic approach emphasizes first-person systematic methods to experience nature that have

not been emphasized in ‘objective’ modern science. In this view, the mind and the universe

examined using it share the same source and the same laws of nature. This implies that reliable

knowledge can be gained directly in the inner laboratory of the scientist’s mind by direct empirical

means to investigate matter, mind, and consciousness in the systematic pursuit of total knowledge.

We first briefly overview major quantum theories to establish the background to extend into Veda.

Standard quantum theory and consciousness

With progress from the classical to the quantum paradigm, critical challenges to the assumption

of subject/object independence have confronted ‘objective’ science. In the standard (Copenhagen)

interpretation of QT, for example, a conscious observer is said to have a central role in getting from

indeterminate quantum possibilities to classical deterministic objects – via quantum wavefunction

collapse when an observation is made. QT has to account for the change from the wavefunction

(e.g., Schrodinger equation) in mathematical possibility space to sensory actualities as causally

interacting objects in ordinary space. The standard interpretation held this occurs instantaneously

with collapse of the quantum wavefunction upon observation by a conscious observer. But how

could a wavefunction equation in imagined, conceptual, mathematical possibility space actually

interact with the classical environment and collapse into an observable macroscopic real object in

conventional physical space? This ‘quantum jump’ clearly needs to be explained.

Further, the interpretation that a conceptual wavefunction instantaneously collapses into a

classical object precludes causal explanation for the collapse. It seems not to allow any means for the

observed and conscious observer to interact. It places subjective conscious mind as crucial to

objective physical reality, while assuming that conscious mind is in the classical physical world and

cannot be modeled quantum mechanically. A fundamental inconsistency seems to be that for

millions of years classical physical processes preceded evolution of organisms that are complex

enough to develop consciousness. If so, then how could such classical physical processes, requiring

quantum wavefunction collapse, take place if conscious observers had not yet evolved in nature

(Boyer, 2008)? This requires unpacking the concept of the wavefunction and its collapse with

respect to the theorized fundamental role of consciousness (Boyer, 2012).

Through the standard QT interpretation, there has been important recognition of the role of

conscious mind in scientific observations – in comparison to classical physics which basically

ignored the issue. But how the mind works, if and where it exists, and what the world is like –

indeed, whether it even exists in-between observations – remain in need of a rational explanation.

Key assertions including instantaneous wavefunction collapse involving a conscious observer,

fundamental randomness at the basis of nature, and the meaninglessness of local causal determinism

at the quantum level all contributed to a psychological ‘inviolable wall,’ within which standard QT

was held to be complete and no further explanation of nature was even possible.

Einstein, for one, argued that this view is incomplete (Carmichael, 2007), and that ‘hidden

variables’ eventually will allow a coherent classical deterministic account of nature. But more recent

QT interpretations are going underneath the ‘inviolable wall’ to theorized real levels of nature more

fundamental than the ordinary classical physical level. Theoretical and empirical research in QT now

concerns subtler, entangled, nonlocal real fields and their causal relationship to conscious mind.

Quite importantly, these more recent QT interpretations help bridge the gap between real physical

and real mental levels toward addressing the mind/body problem and the causal efficacy of mind.

Also, the door has opened for possible resolution of other recalcitrant dilemmas that are by-products

of fragmentation in the two main theories in modern science: relativity theory and quantum theory.

This paper summarizes key steps of progress, and suggests that these most successful theories do not

address the bottom line of nature. The Vedic model is introduced here because its expanded ontology

and epistemology address them in a logically coherent manner.

Beyond the standard QT interpretation toward nonlocal mind and consciousness

In recent decades, QT interpretations have gone beyond the original standard interpretation

(Herbert, 1985; Penrose, 2005). Some of these interpretations propose that ontologically real

quantum waves interact with the real physical environment in a manner that reduces quantum wave

coherence into classical physical objects without involving conscious observers. Called objective

reduction (OR), it is an alternative to instantaneous quantum wavefunction collapse when observed.

Objective reduction identifies reduction of the quantum wavefunction to be an objective process

occurring spontaneously through time. The quantum wavefunction evolves deterministically, but

contains a probabilistic stochastic perturbation insignificant in very small systems. When the small

stochastic perturbations add together across large ‘quantum systems’ or ‘objects,’ it becomes

significant enough to reduce the wavefunction into discrete localized position and other dynamic

attributes typical of ordinary macroscopic objects with neither a conscious observer nor

wavefunction collapse involved. But if imagined ‘quantum systems’ or ‘objects’ turn into real

physical objects, then they cannot be just concepts in mathematical space. This is a gigantic step to

ontologically real quantum waves that actually exist at some deeper level of nature (Boyer, 2021).

The principle of decoherence posits real causal interactions between abstract ‘quantum objects’

and the complex ordinary real physical environment. In this theory, small environmental influences

don’t substantially change the ‘quantum object’ but do limit its possibilities, spontaneously reducing

quantum possibilities toward an allowable set of physical states, independent from a conscious

observer. The wave-like nature of objects is exhibited in the pattern of quantum wave interference

effects when the wave pattern is coherent and not disrupted by environmental influences.

Interactions with the chaotic physical environment suppress or decohere the quantum wave

interference pattern. Physicist Brian Greene (2004, pp. 210-211) explains:

Once environmental decoherence blurs a wave function, the exotic nature of quantum probabilities melts

into the more familiar probabilities of day-to-day life… If a quantum calculation reveals that a cat, sitting

in a closed box…has a 50 percent chance of being alive…decoherence suggests that the cat will not be in

some absurd mixed state of being dead and alive… [L]ong before you open the box, the environment has

already completed billions of observations that, in almost no time at all, turned all mysterious quantum

probabilities into their less mysterious classical counterparts… Decoherence forces much of the

weirdness of quantum physics to ‘leak’ from large objects since, bit by bit, the quantum weirdness is

carried away by the innumerable impinging particles from the environment.

This QT interpretation reflects a major step toward quantum reality. OR proposes that the

transition from quantum to the classical level is not dependent on a subjective conscious observer.

The independence of observed and observer fundamental to classical science is recovered, at least

with respect to quantum wave reduction. Soon we will discuss the principle of consistent histories

added to decoherence, which brings the conscious observer back into the story.

Nonlocality

A huge concern for Einstein was that the standard QT interpretation posits a fundamentally

indeterminate, irreducible randomness at the very heart of nature. This directly challenges the central

pillar of deterministic cause-effect relations in classical science (Herbert, 1985, p. 199). After years

of debate, crucial experiments were designed to test whether there is an indeterminate component at

the core of nature, or there are as yet hidden classical variables that will address the indeterminacy,

as Einstein and colleagues argued in their well-known EPR paradox. Experiments were conducted

beginning in the 1980s, based on Bell’s theorem, which includes assumptions that nature is

deterministic, exists objectively independent from the observer, and lightspeed sets an absolute

speed limit for anything including any form of information transfer (Boyer, 2021).

When the predictions based on QT and on Bell’s theorem were compared in actual experiments,

QT was supported. The results supported quantum entanglement, the phenomenon of highly

correlated behavior of elementary particles after they interact and separate – even when lightspeed

would have disallowed them from exchanging any form of information and having causal effects on

each other. However, the results are not understood as tests whether nature is fundamentally random

or deterministic. Rather, they generally are interpreted as showing that the belief objects interact

only locally within lightspeed is inaccurate. Greene has pointed out:

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen [EPR] were proven by experiment—not by theory, not by pondering, but

by nature – to be wrong… But where could they have gone wrong? Well, remember that the Einstein,

Podolsky, and Rosen argument hangs on one central assumption...since nothing goes faster than the speed

of light, if your measurement on one object were somehow to cause a change in the other…there would

have to be a delay before this could happen, a delay at least as long as the time it would take light to

traverse the distance between the two objects… We are forced to conclude that the assumption made by

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, no matter how reasonable it seems, cannot by how our quantum universe

works (2004, p. 113).

Nonlocality seems not accounted for within the classical mechanics of the known local particle

fields (electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear, gravitational). An adequate model needs to

account for relationships more fundamental than the known fields within lightspeed.

Quantum gravity and real information space. Important further developments in QT include

models that posit an ontologically real information space generating ordinary physical spacetime.

The notion of causal determinism is extended into this underlying field. This suggests that the

‘bottom line’ of nature is not random quantum fluctuations.

In both relativity theory and quantum theory, particles are treated mathematically as

dimensionless points. The concept of a particle is represented as a point with no internal structure, no

extension in space, and only the capability of motion through space. Attempts to integrate relativity

and quantum theories using the point-particle framework repeatedly resulted in the inconsistency of

infinite quantities of energy, suggesting this approach was untenable – or at least incomplete. A

major development in recent decades is string theory, based in part on the principle of super-

symmetry. String theory replaced the mathematical model of the dimensionless point with a filament

or string – at about the Planck scale (10-33 cm). A string has extension in space, and thus an internal

structure with potential for complex higher-order fluctuations, adding explanatory power. The

higher-order fluctuations are significant at the ultra-microscopic scale; otherwise, strings have much

the same mathematical properties as dimensionless points. There is generally one type of string,

although M-theory – which integrates some string theories – proposes a range, called branes (short

for membranes). Strings and branes are held to fluctuate in patterns that produce particles making up

all physical objects. One pattern matches the hypothesized super-symmetric graviton to connect

strings and gravity, canceling meaningless infinite quantities that prevented a consistent theory of

quantum gravity (Greene, 1999).

String and M-theories require mathematical dimensions in addition to the ordinary three spatial

dimensions plus time. The extra dimensions – usually six or seven – are imagined as enfolded or

curled up in the string, called spacetime compactification. Although extra dimensions are degrees of

freedom in imagined mathematical space to model string motion, they also are thought of as sort of

higher-order spatial dimensions (Greene, 1999, 2004; Randall, 2005). Mathematical geometric

strings and branes in compactified higher-dimensional space are posited to be the source of physical

objects in conventional space. This again implies causal interactions between physical objects and

‘mathematical objects,’ further suggesting that ‘mathematical objects’ are ontologically real and

exist somewhere in addition to being concepts in imagined mathematical space. Although attempting

to integrate QT and gravity, these theories share with QT the non-relativistic framework of

background-dependent Newtonian space. A consistent theory of quantum gravity that integrates fully

the relativistic spacetime continuum, such that there is no separate background-dependent field, has

not yet been achieved. However, a new direction in M-theory posits a more fundamental

nonconventional space underlying strings and branes that is posited to produce conventional

spacetime and all matter in it. It includes the concept of zero-branes that may exist:

[P]ossibly in an era that existed before the big bang or the pre-big bang (if we can use temporal terms, for

lack of any other linguistic framework)….[A] zero-brane…may give us a glimpse of the spaceless and

timeless realm… [W]hereas strings show us that conventional notions of space and time cease to have

relevance below the Planck scale, the zero-branes give essentially the same conclusion but also provide a

tiny window on the new unconventional framework that takes over. Studies with these zero-branes

indicate that ordinary geometry is replaced by something known as non-commutative geometry…. In this

geometrical framework, the conventional notions of space and of distance between points melt away,

leaving us in a vastly different conceptual landscape… [I]t gives us a hint of what the more complete

framework for incorporating space and time may involve… Already, through studies in M-theory, we

have seen glimpses of a strange new domain of the universe lurking beneath the Planck length... (Greene,

1999, pp. 379-387).

This glimpse of a potential real field underneath conventional space and the Planck scale reflects

an expanded ontology that includes a real background to ordinary, conventional physical spacetime.

This next theory takes it further in an attempt to build a relativistic theory of quantum gravity.

Loop quantum gravity. This theory, now attempting to be incorporated into string theory, not only

emphasizes the context dependence of objects but further their consistency through time from the

perspective of an observer. The observer does not cause quantum wavefunction collapse – objective

decoherence serves this role. But the change from the quantum state to the classical state needs to be

consistent from the perspective of an observer, related to the principle of consistent histories.

Decoherence concerns how infinite initial abstract possibilities spontaneously narrow down toward

definite tangible actualities. But more is needed to narrow down possibilities and probabilities to

logically consistent empirical histories. Decoherence in a consistent histories framework concerns

consistency of experience of observers. Questions about nature related to observations are identified

as decoherent histories if specific answers are not superpositions of answers to other questions.

Physicist and quantum gravity theorist Lee Smolin (2001, p. 43) explains:

This approach lets you specify a series of questions about the history of the universe. Assuming only that

the questions are consistent with one another, in the sense that the answer to one will not preclude our

asking another, [it] tells us how to compute the possibilities of the different possible answers.

The observer is included in this interpretation of QT – but again, not as causing wavefunction

collapse due to conscious observation. There is one world with many different perspectives or minds

in it. The world we get depends on the questions we ask about it, such as the measurement choices

and historical contexts. Definite answers emerge from questions in a context-dependent manner.

This is consistent with the principles of time asymmetry – arrow of time – and the 2nd law of

thermodynamics (increasing entropy with change across time).

Importantly, the association of initial conditions with initial observational questions also implies

initial order (and even an initial role for an observer). The consistency suggests that change in nature

is not fundamentally random, whether independent from an observer or not; and also, is logically

consistent and orderly for the experiencing observer. This theory incorporates the observer, like in

the observer-dependent general theory of relativity, attempting to relativize quantum theory by

emphasizing the relational, observer-dependent nature of consistent decoherent events inside the

spacetime continuum. The relativistic frame of reference is a partial consistent history of the

universe from a particular observer perspective. In this theory, space is generated from topological

relationships in a dynamically evolving network of intersecting loops, referred to as a spin network.

Smolin (2001) explains further:

Translated into the loop picture of the gravitational field…the area of any surface comes in discrete

multiples of simple units. The smallest of these units is about the Planck area… A spin network is

simply a graph…whose edges are labeled by integers. These integers come from the values that the

angular momentum of a particle is allowed to have in quantum theory, which are equal to an integer times

half of Planck’s constant… The volume contained in a spin network, when measured in Planck units, is

basically equal to the number of nodes of the network… A very large network can represent a quantum

geometry that looks smooth and continuous when viewed on a scale much larger than the Planck length…

In the spin network picture, space only seems continuous—it is actually made up of building blocks

which are the nodes and edges of the spin network… The spin networks do not live in space; their

structure generates space (pp. 130-138).

A spin network is a mathematical theory of a very abstract non-material functional structure,

called a pure geometry, as the source and generator of conventional four-dimensional spacetime.

Adding principles from black hole thermodynamics, the spin network links the concept of bits of

quantized pure geometry to bits of non-physical information in a formal mathematical relationship –

Bekenstein’s bound. Accordingly, the smallest possible surface area of space has an inherent

mathematical limit to the amount of information it can contain. This represents a further step toward

quantum reality of a real, non-material quantized information space underneath conventional space.

Matter is reduced to quantized units of space, then to a pure geometry more abstract than

conventional space, and then further to quantized information space. The observer is placed into the

complex system of changing causal events by proposing one universe with a multitude of observers

in it. It is a complex causal network of interacting light cones built of the smallest possible events or

bits of information, with an unlimited number of separate but overlapping consistent observer

perspectives. Quantum superposition is at the level of the mind in terms of overlapping observer

perspectives, drawing on the many-worlds QT interpretation (especially the mind-worlds version).

Superpositions of histories, independent from each other, associated with different observers, allow

agreed-upon outcomes given the same initial conditions and similar histories – a relativistic model.

But the concept of an observer remains incomplete. The observer still experiences a unitary state

from outside of the system, as in QT. Also, core aspects of the observer, including consciousness,

are left out. Smolin (2001) further points out:

The quantum description is always the description of some part of the universe by an observer who

remains outside it…. If you observe a system that includes me, you may see me as a superposition of

states. But I do not describe myself in such terms, because in this kind of theory no observer ever

describes themselves. Rather than trying to make sense of metaphysical statements about their being

many universes—many realities [for example the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory]—within

one solution to the theory of quantum cosmology, we are constructing a pluralistic version of different

mathematical descriptions, each corresponding to what a different observer can see when they look

around them. Each is incomplete, because no observer can see the whole universe. Each observer, for

example, excludes themselves from the world they describe. But when two observers ask the same

questions, they must agree…. One universe, seen by many observers, rather than many universes, seen

by one mythical observer outside the universe (pp. 47-48).

Loop quantum gravity theory attempts to be background independent in the sense that gravity is

integrated as the curvature of spacetime and does not function in it. But at the same time, it goes

beyond relativistic spacetime to a deeper, more abstract substrate of information space to which

conventional spacetime is background dependent. However, the only place for an underlying

nonconventional information space that could generate conventional space would seem to be a

subtler level of nature underneath the Planck scale. As physicist Brian Greene (2004) notes:

[W]hen you get down to the Planck length (the length of a string)…“going smaller” ceases to have

meaning once you reach the size of the smallest constituent of the cosmos. For zero-sized point particles

this introduces no constraint, but since strings have size, it does. If string theory is correct, the usual

concepts of space and time, the framework within which all of our daily experiences take place, simply

don’t apply on scales finer than the Planck scale… As for what concepts take over, there is yet no

consensus. One possibility…is that the fabric of space on the Planck scale resembles a lattice or grid

[loop quantum gravity], with the ‘space’ between the grid lines being outside the bounds of physical

reality… Another possibility is that space and time do not abruptly cease to have meaning on extremely

small scales, but instead morph into other, more fundamental concepts. Shrinking smaller than the Planck

scale would be off limits not because you run into a fundamental grid, but because the concepts of space

and time segue into notions for which “shrinking smaller” is meaningless…. Many string theorists,

including me, strongly suspect that something along these lines actually happens, but to go further we

need to figure out the more fundamental concepts into which space and time transform (pp. 350-351).

Mathematician and physicist David Bohm (1980, p. 244) also points to a real level of nature

underneath the Planck scale:

[T]he current attempt to understand our ‘universe’ as if it were self-existent and independent of the sea of

cosmic energy can work at best in some limited way… Moreover, it must be remembered that even this

vast sea of cosmic energy takes into account only what happens on a scale larger than the critical length

of 10-33 cm [Planck scale]…. But this length is only a certain kind of limit on the applicability of ordinary

notions of space and time. To suppose that there is nothing beyond this limit at all would indeed by quite

arbitrary. Rather, it is very possible that beyond it lies a further domain, or set of domains, of the nature

of which we have as yet little or no idea.

These quotes exemplify very important and subtle steps of progress toward a real field space of

some kind that underlies, is more fundamental than, and permeates our familiar conventional deeply-

ingrained notions of space and time. They clearly point in the direction of an expanded ontology of

real information space in addition to our familiar physical reality of conventional spacetime (Boyer,

2021).

Neorealist interpretation of QT. This interpretation is outlined in more detail because it explicitly

posits an expanded ontology applying the concept of nonlocality. Proposing a sub-quantum reality,

the theory is primarily from mathematician David Bohm and physicist B.J. Hiley. Bohm had

extensive talks with Einstein in the last few months of Einstein’s life that might have influenced the

ideas (Talbot (1991). It is a deterministic reformulation that does not invoke the subjectivity of the

observer in wave function collapse. In this sense, it is a realization of the hidden variables approach

favored by Einstein (Talbot, 1991; Bohm & Hiley, 1993). It is sometimes mischaracterized as a

return to classical physics because it models elementary particles as classical objects with intrinsic

dynamic properties. But it also posits an ontologically real nonlocal wave field of nonconventional

space that mediates particle behavior – the quantum potential or psi wave – neither in classical

relativity theory nor in other QT interpretations. It also goes deeper than the model of real but

meaningless information space in loop quantum gravity theory (Boyer, 2008, 2021).

In this interpretation, quantum particles are guided by extremely subtle, real, nonlocal psi waves.

To match the behavior of objects according to classical and quantum mechanics, the psi wave must

be an extended field connected to every particle in the universe, nonlocal, classically invisible,

superluminal, and common in nature. The wave behavior of quantized particles is due to the

nonlocal psi wave. In contrast to standard interpretations, wave collapse is accounted for objectively,

similar to decoherence effects. Also, quantum indeterminism is accounted for deterministically, in

terms a particle’s path as a combination of the guiding psi wave and the vast myriad of local and

nonlocal contextual influences. Together these influences are unfathomable and produce a jittery,

complex path of motion that cannot be predicted exactly – thus both deterministic and probabilistic.

Importantly, the psi wave is theorized to be non-random, ‘active’ meaningful information by

which it causally influences particle motion, not via the strength of the forces as in the mechanics of

the four fundamental fields. However, is it really possible to guide particle behavior by way of this

deeper psi wave of mental intentions? In other words, does this proposed subtler level of nature

include meaningful information associated with causally efficacious intentional minds?

Bohm speculated that the nonlocal psi wave is an ontologically real mental space that functions

with extreme subtlety to allow systematic, meaningful information transmission. He proposed this as

a general framework for how mind influences matter (Bohm, 1980; Bohm & Hiley, 1993). At this

level, nature functions via highly interconnected nonlocal processes in mental space, which brings

into the causal chain real causally efficacious mental intentions. In contrast to physical theory,

causally efficacious minds are neither epiphenomenal nor a fundamental misperception. And the

supposedly closed physical causal chain does not mysteriously unlink to insert conscious mind at

some evolutionary stage of physical complexity. Individual minds are nonlocal and causally

influence local physical events by an underlying and permeating, subtler ontologically real field.

This reflects further disembedding of classical physical reality from the notion that it appears due to

instantaneous collapse of the quantum wave function via conscious observation (Boyer, 2008, 2021)

Adding an ontological level of nonlocal information or mental space underlying the classical

physical world, it thus in some ways might be classified as a type of dualism (rather than classical

realism or monistic materialism) – but there is more to it. It is not Cartesian dualism with mind as

not spatially extended with respect to conventional space. The underlying psi wave field is a

fluctuation of nonconventional, nonlocal space that permeates Einstein’s relativistic gravitational

spacetime. In this quote, Bohm and Hiley (1993, pp. 347-348) describe it as sub-relativistic:

[W]e say that underlying the level in which relativity is valid there is a subrelativistic level in which it is

not valid even though relativity is recovered in a suitable statistical approximation as well as in the large

scale manifest world… Although there is no inherent limitation to the speed of transmission of impulses

in this subrelativistic level, it is quite possible that the quantum nonlocal connections might be

propagated, not at infinite speeds, but at speeds very much greater than the speed of light… As the

atomic free path quantum indeterminacy or randomness is the first sign of a ‘subcontinuous’ domain in

which the laws of continuous matter would break down at the quantum level, so the free path in our

trajectories would be the first sign of a subquantum domain in which the laws of quantum theory would

break down.… The next sign of a breakdown of the quantum theory would be the discovery of some yet

smaller dimension whose role might be analogous to the dimension of an atom in the atomic explanation

of continuous matter. We do not as yet know what this dimension is, but it seems reasonable to propose

that it could be of the order of the Planck length, where, in any case, we can expect that our current ideas

of space-time and quantum theory might well break down.

To summarize, this interpretation posits a subtle ontologically real mental space underlying and

permeating conventional four-dimensional spacetime. It is characterized as relatively undiminished

by distance (compared to how physical forces diminish with increasing distance), deterministic,

quantized (in the sense of individual waves, but not Planck-size quanta), relative (in an abstract

sense of interconnected and entangled but not Einstein locality), non-physical (not particle matter-

like), and a pure geometry of information space (mind-like). It is a background of conventional

spacetime underneath the Planck scale. It can be associated variously with terms such as hyperspace,

superspace, higher dimensional space, nonconventional space, mental space, and quantum mind

(though somewhat a misnomer in that it is not Planck-scale quantized). A difficulty of integrating

relativity and QT in quantum gravity is that both don’t account for a background of non-Planck scale

quantized, nonlocal mental space needed for ontologically real minds (Boyer, 2021)

Classical relativistic spacetime can be characterized as quasi-closed, limited to lightspeed and

relativistic gravitational spacetime, Planck-size quantization (per quantum theory), and containing

physical particle-wave force fields and classical particle interaction (billiard ball-like) local

causality. It is theorized to be underlain by and dependent upon a subtler level – analogous to how

earth, water, and air are permeated by conventional space. The subtler level is characterized by

nonlocal interactions with more object interdependence, individualized but more wave field-like

than discrete particle-like, not characterized by particle interactions or thermodynamics, and

involving superluminal but not ‘instantaneous’ motion. In this view, nonlocal means not local – still

finite but not limited to lightspeed. Elaborations of this interpretation identify the subtler field of

nonlocal mind as the implicate order (Bohm, 1980; Bohm & Hiley, 1993), contrasting it with the

ordinary physical level called the explicate order. Both are held to be aspects of the ultimate

universal plenum called the super-implicate order – a 3-level ontology, not fundamental duality.

Bohm and Hiley (1993) relate the undivided super-implicate order to physical and mental levels:

One may then ask what is the relationship between the physical and the mental processes? The answer

that we propose is that there are not two processes. Rather, it is suggested that both are essentially the

same. This means that that which we experience as mind, in its movement through various levels of

subtlety, will, in a natural way ultimately move the body by reaching the level of the quantum potential

and of the ‘dance’ of the particles. There is no unbridgeable gap or barrier between any of these levels.

Rather, at each stage some kind of information is the bridge. This implies that the quantum potential

acting on atomic particles, for example, represents only one stage in the process… It is thus implied that

in some sense a rudimentary mind-like quality is present even at the level of particle physics, and that as

we go to subtler levels, this mind-like quality becomes stronger and more developed (pp. 385-386).

While this view posits two causally determinate relative levels of space with different degrees of

interconnectedness, it also emphasizes their causal seamlessness, and that they are embedded in an

even more abstract ‘universal flux’ (related to infinite Hilbert space). Again, it is thus more

fundamentally a monistic account. In the following quotes, the explicate order is described as

embedded in the implicate order, both arising from the underlying plenum or universal flux – the

super-implicate order (like the unified field as the source of everything). Discussed soon, Bohm

(1980, p. 235) links it to non-dual Vedanta in the ancient Vedic account:

So we are suggesting that it is the implicate order that is autonomously active while…the explicate order

flows out of a law of the implicate order, so that it is secondary, derivative, and appropriate only in certain

limited contexts…. [T]he relationships constituting the fundamental law are between the enfolded

structures that interweave and interpenetrate each other, throughout the whole of space, rather than

between the…separated forms that are manifest to the senses (and to our instruments).

[T]here is a universal flux that cannot be defined explicitly but which can be known only implicitly, as

indicated by the explicitly definable forms and shapes, some stable and some unstable, that can be

abstracted from the universal flux. In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather,

they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement. In this way, we are able to look on all

aspects of existence as not divided from each other, and thus we can bring to an end the fragmentation

implicit in the current attitude toward the atomic point of view, which leads us to divide everything from

everything in a thoroughgoing way (p, 14).

This neorealist interpretation of QT represents a particularly significant further step toward

quantum reality and an ontological reality of levels of nature underlying the physical. Real, local

particles are underlain by real, nonlocal waves associated with an even more abstract real

information or mental space – ultimately seamless and unified in the super-implicate order.

Individual mind is nonlocal, and is not just in the physical brain as a product of neural activity. As a

3-level model, this helps clarify mind/matter duality as a nested structure. The three levels are: 1) the

gross relative local field of conventional spacetime; 2) infinite eternal universal plenum, akin to the

unified field as the source of everything; and 3) in-between, the subtle relative nonlocal field

generally associated with non-material information or mental space

Further progress toward unification

In mainstream physics, the universe is now theorized to be fluctuations of four quantized

particle-force fields (electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear, and gravitational). The ‘Standard

model’ unifies them into three (electroweak, strong nuclear, gravitational), and the hypothesized

‘Grand Unification model’ into two (strong-electroweak and gravitational). However, the

gravitational field has resisted attempts so far to be expressed within the framework of quantum

mechanics and to connect it to the other three fields in quantum field theory. Mathematical models

attempting to integrate QT theory and relativity theory concern quantum gravity, a major step toward

a coherent theory of one single field as the source of everything – unified field theory.

In this view, the universe began via spontaneous symmetry-breaking in three phases as the

extremely high levels of energy dispersed and temperature dropped. The first phase transition broke

super-symmetry into the gravitational and grand unified forces. About a hundred-thousandth of a

second later and at about 10-27 cm, the grand unified force broke into the strong nuclear and

electroweak forces. In the third phase (about a hundredth of a second later at about 10-16 cm), the

electroweak force differentiated into the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces. These phases also

relate to the theory of an additional field, the Higgs field, considered one of the most important

concepts in 20th Century physics (Greene, 1999). The Higgs field relates to the quality or principle

of viscosity in space, resistance to change in motion, to account for mass. It also is sometimes

associated with inflationary big bang theory, which holds that at the outset of the big bang the force

of gravity became a repulsive force that drove the emerging universe into a colossal expansion. This

incredible inflationary event involved the Higgs or inflaton field contributing a uniform negative

pressure to space with a repulsive force so strong it expanded the emerging universe by a factor as

much as 1090 – associated with dark energy. An elaboration of the theory proposes a pre-inflationary

period in which gravitational and Higgs fields were chaotic; and eventually a random fluctuation

produced values needed for inflationary expansion.

But ‘when’ the theorized big bang ‘began,’ an orderly temporal sequence also began. In the

natural world according to science, an event emerges in an orderly manner from the previous one.

This implies that the source of the universe was a state of lowest entropy, not fundamentally random.

This is crucial in order to understand order in nature. If the universe were fundamentally random,

how could there be memory and order to connect one moment to the next? There would be no

continuity through time, and no orderly laws (Boyer, 2008, 2021). As Greene (2004) points out:

[I]f the universe started out in a thoroughly disordered, high-entropy state, further cosmic evolution would

merely maintain the disorder… Even though particular symmetries have been lost through cosmic phase

transitions, the overall entropy of the universe has steadily increased. In the beginning, therefore, the

universe must have been highly ordered (p. 271).

The principle of symmetry facilitated development of theories that unify quantum fields in the

same type of internal spin. In this context, spin is a mathematical property of a discrete angular

momentum that distinguishes particles. As yet it does not have a physical interpretation, but is

sometimes likened to rotational movement analogous to the external spin of a top. Particles are

classified into five spin types (0, ½, 1, 3/2, and 2) in half-units of Planck’s constant. Generally,

whole number or integral types are the force carrier or virtual particles, bosons, with the statistical

property of unifying or collecting together in the same position and momentum, and cannot be

distinguished from each other at all; they relate to coherence phenomena such as laser light. Half-

integral spin types are fermions, with the property of exclusion and cannot occupy the same energy

state (also not distinguishable from each other). Fermions as matter particles create the vast diversity

in nature. Generally, particles are either fermions or bosons; fermions as matter particles interact via

boson force carrier particles.

The principle of super-symmetry fostered theories such as string theory that attempt to unify

bosons and fermions – toward unifying the strong-electroweak force with the gravitational force. It

requires super-symmetric partners for all particles and antiparticles. Each particle is thought to have

a super-symmetric partner (sparticle) with a spin either ½ larger or ½ smaller. To verify this, super-

symmetric partners of all particles need to be found (such as the photino as partner for the photon,

gluino for gluon, gravitino for graviton). But super-symmetric partners of the known particles have

not yet been found. They also relate to dark matter and the hidden sector because they are not

visible. Dark matter was proposed due to applications of super-symmetry, and to help explain how

galaxies hold together. Dark energy was proposed to help explain empirical findings that the

universe is expanding at an increasing rate (Boyer, 2021).

One of the most prominent issues over the past few decades is how to unify the three forces

(electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear) with the force of gravity. Called super-unification, it is

believed to require an integration of the two major breakthroughs of twentieth-century physics –

quantum theory and general relativity. In other terms, it requires connecting the spin 2 gravity field

with the other fields. This is the focus of quantum gravity theory.

String theories provide a mathematical model that was believed by many physicists to be the best

direction for developing quantum gravity toward unified field theory – but it is now receiving

considerable reevaluation. Again, mathematically, string theories require dimensions in addition to

the ordinary four dimensions of space and time, sometimes conceptualized as spatial dimensions

curled up or compactified in the internal structure of the string. The classical four dimensions are

thought to be the non-compactified or unfurled dimensions that make up our ordinary sensory world.

But higher-order dimensions are conceptualized as imagined mathematical dimensions that are, as of

now, in addition to and not the same as the four real spacetime dimensions (Boyer, 2021).

The Planck scale and underlying nonlocality. In the expanded context emerging in quantum

gravity theories, the concepts of strings, branes, or loops – however the smallest entity, process, or

event is envisioned – still embody some notion of a membrane or boundary. The Planck length is

thought to be the smallest possible division or boundary between objects. But at some point,

discontinuous quanta need to merge into indivisible continuity if there is a unified field that is

beyond all gaps, boundaries or differences – seamless, unitary, and one with itself. The Planck

length is the distance light travels (10-33 cm.) in the Planck time (10–43 sec.). All the theorized four

particle-forces that mediate change in the physical world are said to be subject to this limitation.

However, the experimental verification of nonlocality cannot be accounted for within this limitation.

Given that the theories and findings about the physical universe are generally correct, it would seem

necessary that a subtle underlying, nonlocal field would have to be outside of conventional space and

time, as proposed in some of the quantum theories just described. Measurable objects in

conventional spacetime are theorized to be made of Planck-size quanta; but perhaps there are

underlying non-quantized levels. If so, still there would be no smaller scale than the Planck scale

from the perspective of an independent probe built of physical matter.

From a holistic rather than reductive perspective, the Planck length could be viewed as the

smallest curvature of spacetime from which quantized physical objects are constructed, imposing the

quantum principle at the Planck scale as the smallest bit of conventional spacetime. In this view,

Planck-scale quantization is the limiting of a subtler non-quantized field. Strings, branes, or loops

are models of quantization/compactification, an alternative to the dimensionless point. In string

theory, the classical macroscopic and microscopic world is where the four dimensions of spacetime

are unfolded and unfurled, and spatial dimensions near the ultramicroscopic Planck scale are

enfolded or compactified (Boyer, 2008, 2021).

But the opposite view may be more appropriate: quantization at the Planck scale may be the

compactification, limiting a more abstract, underlying, extended, unfurled, nonlocal wave field into

discrete, local, enfolded classical quantum/particle structures. In other words, conventional

spacetime ends at the Planck scale, but it materializes from a subtler nonconventional, nonlocal field

that generates and permeates it. This seems consistent with the contemporary model of space as flat

– extending in all three directions without being curved. Again, Greene (2004) points out:

Normally, we imagine the universe began as a dot…in which there is no exterior space or time. Then,

from some kind of eruption, space and time unfurled.... But if the universe is spatially infinite, there was

already an infinite spatial expanse at the moment of the big bang...’ In this setting, the big bang did not

take place at one point; instead, the big bang eruption took place everywhere on the infinite expanse.

Comparing this to the conventional single-dot beginning, it is as though there were many big bangs, one

at each point on the infinite spatial expanse. After the big bang, space swelled, but its overall size didn’t

increase since something already infinite can’t get any bigger…’ [T]his example of infinite flat space is

far more than academic... [T]here is mounting evidence that the overall shape of space is not curved….

[T]he flat, infinitely large spatial shape is the front-running contender for the large-scale structure of

space-time (pp. 249-50).

The unified field as the lowest (zero) entropy, super-symmetric state of (perfect) order.

According to QFT, space is not an empty void or nothing, if it at least contains vacuum fluctuations.

In unified field theory, the universe is more appropriately viewed as emerging from something –

even from the source of everything – certainly not from literally nothing. In this theory, the four

fundamental force fields emerged through spontaneous sequential symmetry-breaking as

temperature dropped and the universe expanded (Greene, 1999). This can be likened to phase

transitions of H2O condensing from steam to water to ice as temperature drops; at each stage,

symmetry is reduced. In this more holistic view, the fundamental forces potentially pre-existed in the

perfectly symmetric super-unified state. But also, as the source of continuously occurring quantum

vacuum fluctuations, random jitters, zero-point motion or inherent dynamism, the unified field

continues along with and after sequential symmetry-breaking. If it continues after the fundamental

force fields differentiated, then it is more than just the unification of these forces. The underlying

unity and super-symmetry don’t vanish when the diversity of symmetry-breaking manifests from it.

In addition, the principle of the unbounded quantum wave as a coherent state that decoheres

through interaction with the classical environment implies that more fundamental quantum fields are

associated with increased symmetry, coherence, and order (Greene, 2004). The unified field as the

source of everything and origin of orderly, universal laws of nature is also consistent with it as being

of the highest order. Moreover, the ‘arrow of time’ and the second law of thermodynamics further

suggest the origin and source of change in nature is a state of lowest entropy (Penrose, 2005; Greene,

2004). Degrees of order from highest to lower come from super- symmetry and lowest entropy, not

from fundamental randomness (Boyer, 2008, 2021)

Higgs fields and big bang cosmology. Higgs field theory posits that in the third phase of symmetry-

breaking into the weak and electromagnetic forces, a Higgs field condensed to a nonzero value when

the temperature of the universe dropped to about 1015 degrees, creating a Higgs ocean – analogous to

steam condensing to water. Another Higgs field – grand unified Higgs – was proposed to explain

the earlier second phase of symmetry-breaking of the strong and weak nuclear forces; and a third

Higgs field was proposed to explain the first symmetry-breaking when gravity emerged, which

relates to inflationary big bang theory (Greene, 2004). In this theory, for an extremely brief time

period of 10-35 seconds of the big bang, gravity became a repulsive force that drove the emerging

universe into a colossal expansion (Guth, 1997), much faster than lightspeed. But it is thought not to

be inconsistent with it, because lightspeed applies to motion through ordinary space whereas

inflationary expansion refers to the inflation of space (Greene, 2004). It also can be understood to

imply a level of nonconventional space involving motion faster than lightspeed but not instantaneous

– having a ‘not local’ quality, but still finite (Boyer, 2021).

According to inflationary big bang theory, the total amount of matter and energy in the universe

is more than is accounted for considering the visible objects, which contribute about five percent.

Astronomical research suggested that additional matter is needed to hold galaxies together, leading

to the theory of dark matter said to account for approximately an additional 23 percent (maybe

30%). Observations that the universe is expanding based on measurements of the recession rates of

supernova led to revival of Einstein’s discarded notion of the cosmological constant, this time

associated with dark energy. It was estimated that the rate of expansion requires a cosmological

constant associated with an amount of dark energy that contributes about 72 percent (maybe 65%),

which fits the remaining amount for inflationary theory.

But what triggered inflationary expansion? It has been proposed that the big bang emerged from

a pre-inflationary period when the gravitational and Higgs fields were bumpy and disordered; and

eventually, random fluctuations somehow produced values needed for inflationary expansion. But

this certainly isn’t ‘everything coming for nothing.’ Astronomer David Darling (1996, p. 49) notes:

What is a big deal is how you got something out of nothing. Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on

this one. They have not got a clue either… “In the beginning,” they will say, “there was nothing―no

time, space, matter, or energy. Then there was a quantum flutter from which…” Whoa! Stop right

there… First there was nothing, then there was something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two

with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all… and before you know it, they have

pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats… You cannot fudge this by appealing to

quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which

anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect change from nothingness to somethingness, or there

is something, in which case that needs explaining.

Inflationary cosmology needs to be consistent with unified field theory. If the unified field is the

state of lowest entropy, then the pre-inflationary period in which low entropy came from inflationary

expansion strangely suggests something existed prior to the unified field. Also, how does the pre-

inflationary period reconcile with quantum gravity theories that posit information space or higher-

dimensional space is the generator of physical space? Information space is not characterized as just a

bumpy, chaotic, randomly fluctuating field; but in contrast, suggests order in the sense that it is

theorized to produce the orderly structures of physical spacetime and of all matter.

Another way to understand these issues is to consider pre-inflationary theory as another angle in

attempts to understand subtle, nonlocal, non-material, nonconventional space (akin to the ‘implicate

order’ permeating the ‘explicate order’ in neorealism). This would include the order needed to form

the gravitational field, Higgs field, dark energy, and inherent dynamism – discussed later in the

context of the Vedic model of ontological levels of nature.

Spacetime could not ‘blast out’ from the infinite eternal unified field. In holistic unified field

theory, nature can be said to ‘condense’ or ‘precipitate’ via spontaneous sequential symmetry-

breaking into increasing localization, discreteness, and mass. In the notion of levels of spacetime

introduced above, gross conventional and subtle nonconventional levels are phenomenal limitations

of the underlying unified field that is already present everywhere. Space would not begin at an

infinitesimal point and expand out in all directions from an inert Planck-size quantum or an almost

infinitely dense singularity, or from literally nothing (Greene, 1999). Rather, infinite space and

eternal time ‘condense’ to many ‘points’ everywhere. Consistent with this view, there can be bangs

from black holes in conventional space. But considering the entire cosmos, it would not explode

outward – because everything resulting from it remains inside it (Boyer, 2021a, b).

Infinite inside and finite outside

A cutting-edge concept in contemporary cosmology is the AdS/CFT correspondence, originally

proposed by physicist J. Maldacena (1998). It concerns both the shape of the cosmos and the nature

of elementary particles. AdS refers to anti-de Sitter space, related to quantum gravity formulated in

terms of string/M-theory. CFT refers to conformal field theory, which deals with quantum field

theories of elementary particles. To connect to the holistic Vedic account, it is here suggested that

the contrasting models of de Sitter and anti-de Sitter space concern different levels of spacetime

within infinite eternal spacetime.

The cosmic ultra-macroscopic structure and the ultra-microscopic (infinitesimal) elementary

particle structures can be usefully envisioned as linked by applying the concept of levels of

spacetime. Phenomenally, creation manifests as not-local finite levels of spacetime open in the inner

direction of its infinite eternal basis and closed in the limited outer local finite direction. Going

outward is toward the restricted, bounded but vast expanse of the finite world; going inward is

toward the unrestricted, unbounded infinite eternal unified field. Outward is finite and bounded;

inward is infinite and unbounded. Nature is infinite on the inside and finite on the outside.

According to the completely holistic Vedic model, in the manifestation of levels of nature from

the most abstract whole to the most concrete and tangible parts, the parts appear more prominent. In

the process of cosmic evolution, the parts on the concrete physical levels as inert randomly-

fluctuating quantum particles congeal into stars, galaxies, and planets guided by inherent laws.

Through time, living beings evolve that are complex enough to express conscious intelligence,

eventually evolving further to direct knowledge of the ultimate wholeness. Parts emerge from the

whole, and then via increasing complexity appear to unify – all along naturally guided by the whole.

Infinity is inside each of us as the unified field of cosmic intelligence, the universal Self, and

phenomenally appears in ordinary waking experience to be finite outside us (Boyer, 2021a, b).

Three-level ontological models of nature

Modern physics progressed as an objectified reductive investigation, largely avoiding

subjectivity. This led to a model with one ontological level: the causally closed objective physical

universe – sometimes called materialistic monism or physical and scientific realism. Modern science

increasingly recognizes that mind and consciousness are not accounted for in this one-level model.

Unified field theories are developing, which can be viewed as adding a second level. But quantum

theory required consideration of how to get from quantum wave functions in imagined mathematical

space to real physical space; and this brought mind and consciousness back into the story. It is

revealing that a two-level ontology (physical and unified field as now commonly conceptualized in

mainstream physics) still doesn’t account for mind or for consciousness.

As outlined earlier, the neorealist interpretation of QT is a non-dual or monistic model with three

levels: explicate (gross), implicate (subtle), and super-implicate (transcendent) orders (Bohm, 1980;

Bohm & Hiley, 1993; Boyer, 2012a) – a major step toward including mind. This interpretation has

correspondence with recent three-level models, including the model by mathematician and

cosmologist Roger Penrose (2005), which draws from Platonism. Discussing mathematical forms

associated with an objective Platonic realm, Penrose states:

I am aware that there will still be many readers who find difficulty with assigning any kind of actual

existence to mathematical structures. Let me make the request of such readers that they merely broaden

their notion of what the term ‘existence’ can mean to them. The mathematical forms of Plato’s world

clearly do not have the same kind of existence as do ordinary physical objects such as tables and chairs...

Objective mathematical notions must be thought of as timeless entities and are not to be regarded as being

conjured into existence at the moment that they are first humanly perceived... Those designs were already

‘in existence’ since the beginning of time, in the potential timeless sense that they would necessarily be

revealed precisely in the form that we perceive them today, no matter at what time or in what location

some perceiving being might have chosen to examine them... Thus, mathematical existence is different

from physical existence but also from an existence that is assigned by our mental perceptions. Yet there is

a deep and mysterious connection with each of those other two forms of existence: the physical and the

mental... I have schematically indicated all of these three forms of existence—the physical, the mental,

and the Platonic mathematical—as entities belonging to three separate ‘worlds’... There may be a sense in

which the three worlds are not separate at all, but merely reflect, individually, aspects of a deeper truth

about the world as a whole of which we have little conception at the present time (pp. 17-23).

Another model with three levels has been outlined by physicist Henry Stapp (2000, 2007). In

analyzing quantum wave function collapse, three levels are used to explain how real objective and

real subjective experiential levels might interact. Extending orthodox quantum theory, Stapp (2000,

p. 213) states that consciousness is needed in wave function collapse because:

[T]he local-reductionistic laws of physics, regarded as a causal description of nature, are incomplete....

The physical part of reality represents merely the possibilities for an actual experience, not the actually

experienced reality itself.”

[F]rom the purely physical standpoint the [wave function] collapse seems to come from nowhere, as an

unpredictable and undetermined ‘bolt from the blue.’ Something is needed to...bring ‘classicality’ into the

dynamics, and it needs a ‘cause’ for the collapse, and it needs a reality to complement the ‘potentia’... It

must be something that exists, and the only thing that we know exists, besides the physical part of

reality...is the experiential part....

The three levels in this model are physical reality, experiential reality, and all-possibility Hilbert

space. Hilbert space is placed similarly to the super-implicate order in Bohm and Hiley’s model,

which also has some similarities with Penrose’s model of the ‘Platonic realm.’

These models also have at least some correspondence with the three-level model by physicist and

unified field theorist John Hagelin (1987) – an abstract mathematical Lagrangian formulation. In

very compact form, the Lagrangian contains two terms. The first term, denoted as Φ, is described as

a classical conception of a static space and time translation invariant field – a non-changing field of

existence. The second term represents dynamic order or change, denoted as II. This term represents

the inherent capability of the field to generate orderly change in it. This formulation also relates the

unified field to Hilbert space, a complex vector space of infinite dimensions as an infinite collection

of points comprising all quantum mechanical states.

This unified theory includes concepts of the knower or observer and the process of knowing –

not just the known. The knower quality of the field is interpreted as the property of the Hilbert space

of states to be a non-changing, unmanifest background for all possible unitary transformations or

states of the field, while itself remaining unchanged. It is likened to the uninvolved observer of all

transformations that, through its dynamic orderliness associated with the discriminative role in

evolving the quantum mechanical system, determines the physical manifestations of the system. The

process of knowing quality of the field is related to quantum mechanical observables that serve as

quantum mechanical operators in Hilbert space, generating changes of one state into another in

unitary transformations. The known is the stable quantum mechanical states themselves. This model

can be viewed as a more abstract view of substance and form, as existence and dynamic order. It is

closer to the completely holistic 3-in-1 model described in various ways throughout Vedic literature.

In contemporary terms, the Vedic model can be interpreted as including 1) the ordinary finite, local

physical level of classical physics; 2) the subtle finite, nonlocal, nonphysical level including mind

that is beginning to be identified in some aspects of quantum physics; and 3) the transcendent source

of everything in unified field physics (Boyer, 2006, 2007, 2008).

The holistic Vedic account: unity, quinternity, trinity, non-duality (1st to 10th Mandalas)

A helpful strategy in building a more integrated understanding of levels of nature is to disembed

from the reductive perspective that brings everything down through smaller and smaller scales to

randomness and nothing. In contrast to the universe narrowing down to an infinitesimal point such as

a black hole, or even to literally nothing, the big bang – or whatever dynamics of nature that result in

phenomenal materialization – may be more logically conceptualized as a concretization of infinite

into finite. Spacetime is not created from nothing, but rather is a phenomenal limitation of the

infinite eternal unified field that already is existing everywhere. From this holistic perspective, no

new dimensions of space and time are required to account for nonlocality. The difference between

subtle nonconventional spacetime (implicate order) and gross conventional spacetime (explicate

order) is not new higher-order spatial dimensions (in contrast to string/M-theories), if they are

limitations of the infinite eternal unified field (super-implicate order). The reductive approach is

challenged to explain how everything comes from nothing, and how the whole is a unification of

parts that somehow become more than the sum of the parts. The holistic view has the opposite

challenge of how the parts emerge as limitations of the whole – which is exactly what Veda is.

The ancient Vedic tradition (Hensley, 2014) is increasingly recognized to apply this holistic

strategy in enumerating levels of nature. Sometimes described as the oldest continuous tradition of

knowledge, the word Veda generally can be translated as ‘knowledge.’ The closest concept in

modern science seems to be the unified field as the ‘source of everything,’ which also must be the

source of all knowledge (Hagelin, 1987, 1989). Veda begins with ultimate unity or wholeness: the

whole creates the parts, which remain within the whole. The ultimate wholeness is simultaneously

smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest (Katha Upanishad 1.2.20, Nader, 2000),

beyond reductionism and holism. For many centuries, the Vedic approach remained in obscurity and

was largely considered irrelevant to daily life. It was classified as mythological, pre-scientific, and

only of historical significance. While its philosophical depth was somewhat acknowledged, its

practical developmental technologies were not applied or even understood.

In recent years, Vedic proponent and educator Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has reestablished the

holistic value of the ancient Vedic tradition and revived its practical applications, as Maharishi

Vedic Science and Technology. (Maharishi became well-known beginning in the 1960s as a teacher

of Transcendental Meditation and related advanced programs, establishing non-profit educational

organizations including a doctoral-level accredited university in the U.S., as well as many schools

internationally. Since publication in 1970 of initial research on the TM program in Science, over 600

research papers document its beneficial physiological, psychological, and sociological effects (e.g.,

Orme-Johnson, 2020; Scientific Research on Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi

Programme—Collected Papers (1977-90; Dillbeck, 2011.)

In contrast to the reductive physicalist paradigm, the holistic Vedic account unfolds the parts of

nature within infinite eternal unity as sequential limitations or localizations into finite forms. In other

words, the parts emerge within the whole, rather than the whole emerging from combining the parts.

Ancient Vedic science as systematically unfolded in the first section of Rik Veda can be understood

to account for how phenomenal nature manifests within the unified field of universal Being – from

the highest-order holism all the way to phenomenally lower-order, fragmented inert parts. It can be

viewed as generally consistent with concepts of sequential symmetry-breaking, quantum

decoherence, the ‘arrow of time,’ and the second law of thermodynamics that imply the universe

emerged from the lowest entropy, super-symmetric ground state of the unified field. Major advances

in quantum theories outlined earlier are progressing toward the holistic Vedic account in Maharishi

Vedic Science, which can be described in terms of three ontological levels 1) the infinite unified

field; 2) the subtle finite relative nonlocal field associated with mind; and 3) the gross finite relative

local field of physical matter (Boyer, 2008, 2021).

The Totality of nature is expressed in the sequence of 10 Mandalas (chapters) of Rik Veda. It

begins with unity. The next eight Mandalas comprise the theorized eight-fold structure of the

phenomenal universe (8-fold Prakriti), with five fundamental constituents (associated with earth

water, fire, air, space) emerging from three fundamental principles, qualities, or forces (associated

with mind, intellect/heart, ego). It ends in the tenth Mandala, non-dual Totality (Brahman). From

Mandala 10 to 1, it can be summarized in terms of non-duality (1), trinity (3), quinternity (5), and

unity (1) – either direction going from wholeness to wholeness, infinity in each point.

Trinity: three fundamental forces. Conceptual delineations are initial dualities, intimate to

functioning of the discriminating intellect. In duality there is an implied trinity, which concerns the

relationship between the two. This trinity can be found in both modern scientific and ancient Vedic

literature, as well as in many other knowledge traditions. Most ancient knowledge, in India and

around the world, share with modern science a common source in simple binary logic from which

emerge three-fold models (Bhavasar, Boyer, 2009). In the delineation of observer and observed is

the process of observing; in creation and dissolution operators is the maintenance operator; in subject

and object is the predicate (and in Father and Son, the Holy Spirit). Also, for example, there are the

trinities of knower-process of knowing-known, sat-chit-ananda, rishi-devata-chandas, and Brahma-

Vishnu-Siva. In Vedic science, these abstract principles concern the nature of discriminating

processes of the intellect and the dynamics of fundamental forces comprising phenomenal objects –

observer and observed, and process of observing.

In the aspect of Vedic science called Sankhya, three fundamental qualities or ‘forces’ are

delineated and their derivatives enumerated. These three ‘forces’ (which can be associated with Rk

Ved Mandalas 7-9) materialize five fields or constituents (Mandalas 2-6) comprising the entire

universe. This framework is helpful for contemporary particle-force theories which posit a multitude

of particles emerging from four quantum fields (electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear,

gravitational) that gain mass via the theorized Higgs field. This paper proposes an approach to link

the levels in Sankhya with the fundamental force fields in modern physics.

The term Sankhya means to enumerate levels/qualities of nature within the Totality, from subtle

non-physical levels to the grossest level of physical matter. The three fundamental qualities or forces

in Sankhya and Vedic literature generally are sattva guna, rajas guna, and tamas guna. They are

described as inseparable, co-existing and co-functioning in relative degrees to carry out every

interaction in phenomenal creation. The gunas, or qualities, relate to the fundamental fields that

shape infinite potentiality into relative finite phenomena of nonlocal interdependent and local

independent objects and processes. They also can be related to the three aspects of time – present,

future, past – the three spatial dimensions – x, y, z axes or up/down, forward/backward, and right/left

– as well as many other trinities throughout nature, and to the levels of mind (manas), intellect/heart

(buddhi/ahamkara), and ego/self (related to mahat). Although their dynamics are interconnected,

entangled, and self-interacting, in simple terms they can be related to the creative, maintenance, and

destructive or dissolution operators conducting all change. As Maharishi (1967) has explained:

The entire creation is the interplay of the three gunas. When the primal equilibrium of sattva, rajas and

tamas is disturbed, they begin to interact and creation begins. All three must be present in every aspect of

creation because, with creation, the process of evolution begins and this needs two forces opposed to each

other and one that is complementary to both. Sattva and tamas are opposed to each other, while rajas is

the force complementary to both. Tamas destroys the created state; Sattva creates a new state while the

first is being destroyed. In this way, through the simultaneous processes of creation and destruction the

process of evolution is carried on. The force of Rajas plays a necessary but neutral part in creation and

destruction; it maintains a bond between the forces of sattva and tamas (pp. 269-270).

On the gross physical level, these fundamental fields can be related to the principles of attraction

(gravitation), activity (inherent dynamism), and inertia or resistance to change (mass, Higgs fields).

In conventional spacetime, sattva can be associated more with the maintenance operator, upholding

and fostering balanced change and continuity. It is the unifying principle, or the attraction,

balancing, or harmonizing value of nature. In the physical universe, this quality can be associated

with gravity, attraction to the center point of an object, and perhaps the gravitational constant. It also

can be related to the 3rd law of thermodynamics: decreased activity with decreased temperature in

material systems, resulting in decreased entropy, a fundamental negentropic process that maintains

inherent order in nature. Rajas can be related to inherent dynamism, associated with the creation

operator activating the maintenance and dissolution operators. It can be said to provide ‘neutral’

energy or activation that impels change. In the gross physical universe, it can be associated with

energy and expressive or diversifying processes following the law of energy conservation and

relating possibly to lightspeed and Planck energy. Tamas can be related to inertia or inherent

resistance to change, more closely associated with the dissolution operator that restrains the creative

and maintenance operators. In the gross physical universe, it can be related to the concepts of mass,

Higgs field theory, and possibly Planck’s constant.

The three values from which the fundamental unit of physical spacetime is derived – the Planck

length calculated from the gravitational constant, lightspeed, and Planck’s constant to be 10-33 cm –

may correspond to sattva, rajas, and tamas on the gross physical level (Boyer, 2008). Thinking of an

abstract field as made of infinity of points, if each point has a certain property then the field also has

the property, which gives the field overall textural qualities or defining features, associated with the

concept of a medium or field. This may give a sense of how the actual quantitative values of the

Planck scale, lightspeed, and relativistic gravity relate to textural qualities and empirical values of

sattva, rajas, and tamas of the fabric of gross conventional spacetime at the physical level of nature.

Quinternity: five fundamental constituents. In Sankhya, the three gunas, qualities, or ‘forces’

condense or precipitate into five abstract fields, constituents, or elements of nature, called

mahabhutas. The term mahabhuta is from maha (great, universal), bhu (curving back, giving form,

to happen, occur, exist; bhut (creation), and ta (finished, created). These five mahabhutas can be

described as frequencies or vibrations of the unified field in its grossest, most concrete localized

expression. The mahabhutas are associated with the classical concepts of space, air, fire, water, and

earth – but this terminology had been interpreted in a simplistic and misleading manner. They refer

to very abstract processes that structure physical objects with the respective properties of vacuity

(space), mobility (air), luminosity (fire), liquidity (water), and solidity (earth). For example, the

mahabhuta of air not only refers to what we ordinarily think of as air but more fundamentally to the

abstract principles that manifest as gaseous processes, and also agglomerations into matter. The

nature of the mahabhutas as abstract processes may be more obvious with respect to fire. Including

fire as a fundamental constituent clearly suggests the more abstract functional nature of the

mahabhutas. The mahabhuta of fire refers to the underlying laws of nature involved, for example, in

radiation, combustion, oxidation, and illumination (Boyer, 2008, 2021).

In this model, the five mahabhutas make up the gross relative creation – the ultramicroscopic,

microscopic, macroscopic, and ultramacroscopic levels investigated in the physical sciences. Each

mahabhuta precipitates from the preceding one, with an additional limitation or property along with

general properties of the others. The mahabhutas combine in innumerable patterns to create the vast

diversity of the physical universe; but no new ontological levels of nature emerge from them. They

emerge from five subtler non-physical, nonlocal constituents called tanmatras.

As physical, the five mahabhutas must correspond to the quantized particle-forces. The current

state of modern scientific knowledge may not be developed enough to establish precise

correspondences. But if both describe the physical world, it’s reasonable that they would match. The

five mahabhutas can be understood to be expressed in sequential enumeration, somewhat akin to

sequential symmetry-breaking. The mahabhuta of space contains in potential or latent form the other

mahabhutas, but expresses most the specific qualities associated with space.

To link this model to the fundamental forces and the concept of sequential symmetry- breaking,

one reasonable view is that the mahabhuta of space is most closely associated with the gravitational

force. Likewise, the mahabhuta of air would express the gravitational and strong nuclear forces. The

mahabhuta of fire would express the gravitational, strong, and weak forces. In this speculative

comparison to physical science, the mahabhutas of water and earth express all four forces but most

reflect properties of electromagnetism (Boyer, 2008, 2021; Boyer, Hensley, 2009).

Space (Akasha). In the holistic view of the infinite eternal unified field as the source of everything,

the universe and spacetime would begin many ‘places’ or points simultaneously (Greene, 2004).

This eliminates paradoxical issues in reductive models of nature as emerging from absolutely

nothing or a Planck-size quantum in which space and time expand outward – which impels questions

of what existed before it, what it expands into, or what remains when it contracts. Finite levels are

phenomenal limitations within the infinite eternal unified field. Noted earlier in this paper, this also

is relevant to the contemporary model of space as ‘flat’ in the sense of extending in all three

directions without being curved. Greene (2004) describes this model as the front-running contender

for the overall shape of the universe.

With respect to finite space in relative creation, however, space can be thought of as curved. The

notion of the curvature of space – such as into a torus or sphere, or both if a sphere can be conceived

in terms of curving back on itself – relates to finite limitation of infinite self-referral. To explain

finite creation, it can be said that infinity curves back onto itself, infinite self-referral (Bhagavad-

Gita, 9.8) (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1997, p. 37). This curving back onto itself can be associated on

the finite manifest level with a mandala form – related to the Vedic concept of Hiranya garbha,20

the cosmic egg or manifest form of the unified field curving back to create the finite relative cosmic

expanse, Planck-size quanta, atoms, and water droplets.

From the root ‘to appear,’ akasha relates to the principle of vacuity, and seems most akin to

conventional spacetime. Every physical object is permeated by and shaped from akasha. In modern

physics, objects existing in this level have the limitation of lightspeed, and all gross movement of

energy and mass in relativistic conventional spacetime reflects this limit. It is directly related to the

Planck scale, zero-point energy, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Einstein locality and the light

cone, Einstein gravity, the particle interaction model of causality, and Planck-size quantization—the

defining features or textural fabric of conventional spacetime.

The mahabhutas are sometimes described as dimensionless points, in the same sense as the point

particle concept used in calculations of motion in non-relativistic and relativistic classical physics

(Bernard, 1947). Physical objects involve the delineation of space into the three spatial dimensions

necessary to establish volume and magnitude. The mahabhuta of akasha is not described as having a

particulate structure in the sense of quantum theories which posit spacetime as fundamentally

discrete Planck-size quanta or as mediated by a particle such as the hypothesized graviton. However,

the principle of vacuity of akasha is sometimes described as a textural quality of porosity (Bernard,

1947) akin to these conceptions, and also ‘spacetime foam.’ Although the general theory of relativity

describes space as relational, it is nonetheless now not thought of as an empty void but rather

associated with specific textural properties. It is in this sense that akasha historically has been

associated with aether as a very subtle substance, medium or field. In Vaishesika, another aspect of

Vedic science, there is also a delineation of the five mahabhutas. The four mahabhutas other than

akasha are also called paramanus, sometimes interpreted as the smallest divisions of matter. The

four paramanus (air, fire, water, earth) are characterized as having extension and magnitude in space

(akasha), and thus can be associated with quantization and particle properties. The gravitational

constant can be related to the force of attraction or sattva. Correspondingly, the influences

counteracting the force of gravity would seem to be directly related to lightspeed and Planck’s

constant. The point particle field is said to be inherently dynamic, quantified in terms of the Planck

energy, the amount of energy inherent to each quantum related to lightspeed. It seems reasonable to

relate it to rajas or activation. Correspondingly, the property of viscosity or resistance to change

associated with Higgs theory would seem to relate to tamas, and also possibly Planck’s constant.

The five mahabhutas can be thought of as fields with progressive limitations, each more

expressed one embedded in the previous one. They also can be thought of as progressive layers of

the medium of gross spacetime, each one taking on an additional specific quality from which is

expressed different physical phenomena. One way to think about the paramanus is that they are

structured by the spacetime gravitational field being further limited, sharply curving back onto itself

and compactified into forms that function as quanta and particles. In this speculative view, the

mahabhuta of space would express the gravitational force (Boyer, 2018, 2021).

Air (Vayu). From the root ‘to blow,’ vayu can be related to the abstract principle of mobility or

motion, and the related functions of pressure and impact, compression and rarefaction, most akin to

the concept of air. The mahabhuta of vayu (air) precipitates or condenses from the mahabhuta of

space. In the increasing limitation of space, it is the nature of the gravitational unifying force to

attract points of spacetime together into clumps or regions of more and less compression, which

further precipitates into a gaseous state. The mahabhuta of air fills the available three-dimensional

space – within the constraints of gravity – but has the additional limitation of not being able to

permeate objects, properties of a gas. The force that binds or glues particles into nuclei and

compounds is the strong nuclear force. In this model, the mahabhuta of air would express the

gravitational force along with the strong nuclear force.

Fire (Tejas). From the root ‘to be sharp,’ tejas relates to abstract principles of luminosity, form, and

transformation, associated with the fundamental element of fire. Tejas (fire) relates to heat and

temperature as well as radiation, combustion, and oxidation. Fundamental to fire is oxygen, for

example, a core element associated with the principle of air involved in combustion. When there are

aggregates of points as volumes in spacetime that cannot penetrate each other, like air, their agitation

increases when further limited; pressure and activity rise, measured as temperature or heat. At

certain temperatures, particles can be emitted in the form of kinetic energy, resulting in radiation,

heat and luminance. The mahabhuta of fire thus might relate to interactions of the gravitational,

strong nuclear, and especially weak nuclear forces. As Greene (2004) points out:

Gravity is a universally attractive force; hence, if you have a large enough mass of gas, every region of

gas will pull on every other and this will cause the gas to fragment into clumps.... Even though the clumps

appear to be more ordered than the initially diffuse gas—in calculating entropy you need to tally up the

contributions from all sources.... For the initially diffuse gas cloud, you find that the entropy decrease

through the formation of orderly clumps is more than compensated by the heat generated as the gas

compresses, and, ultimately, by the enormous amount of heat and light released when nuclear processes

begin to take place (p. 172).

Water (Apas). The mahabhuta of apas (water) relates to the abstract principle of liquidity or fluidity.

It has freedom of flow or movement to fill the available space within the limitations of its

permeability; but because of its lower kinetic energy and higher mass, only sort of ‘downward’

gravitational pull due to increased thickness or density. The liquid state has additional limitations

over fire, air, and space: less motion/heat, more restricted flow compared to gaseous expansion.

On a molecular scale, for instance, ice has a crystalline form of H2O molecules arranged in an ordered,

hexagonal lattice... The overall pattern of the ice molecules is left unchanged only by certain special

manipulations, such as rotations in units of 60 degrees about particular axes of the hexagonal

arrangement. By contrast, when we heat ice, the crystalline arrangement melts into a jumbled, uniform

clump of molecules—liquid water—that remains unchanged under rotations by any angle, about any axis.

So, by heating ice and causing it to go through a solid-to-liquid phase transition, we have made it more

symmetric... Similarly, if we heat liquid water and it turns into gaseous steam, the phase transition also

results in an increase in symmetry. In a clump of water, the individual H20 molecules are, on average,

packed together with the hydrogen side of one molecule next to the oxygen side of its neighbor. If you

were to rotate one or another molecule in a clump it would noticeably disrupt the molecular pattern. But

when the water boils and turns into steam, the molecules flit here and there freely; there is no longer any

pattern to the orientations of the H20 molecule and hence, were you to rotate a molecule or group of

molecules, the gas would look the same. Thus, just as the ice-to-water transition results in an increase in

symmetry, the water-to-steam transition does so as well (Greene, 2004, p. 253).

Liquidity relates to the concept of flow – movement along a path, such as a river current or

electrical current. As to particle-forces, it seems most closely associated with electromagnetism. The

outer shell of charged atoms allows electrons to flow, such as through copper wire, from negative to

positive and positive to negative electric charge. Electric current flows easily when electrons are

loosely held; mediums that hold electrons tightly are insulators that restrict flow. The mahabhuta of

water involves all four fundamental forces, but most closely electromagnetism with emphasis on

electricity. Before their symmetry was recognized, it was modeled as electricity and magnetism,

Earth (Prthivi). From the root ‘broad or extended,’ the mahabhuta of prthivi (earth) relates to the

abstract principle of solidity, the most inert state. Matter associated with the earth principle has no

directional freedom in that it doesn’t flow. It involves various degrees of crystalline structures with

more rigid and fixed alignment of parts. It represents increased limitation over a liquid form – such

as water into ice when temperature and motion associated with heat or fire is reduced into a less

dynamic state. The mahabhuta of earth is the endpoint of the process of manifestation.

With respect to correspondence with fundamental physical forces, the mahabhuta of earth seems

most associated with magnetism – although tangibly expressing all the fundamental particle-forces

and all the other mahabhutas. Are there reasons to associate the mahabhuta of earth more with

magnetism and the mahabhuta of water more with electricity? Electric current flows across objects

between charge sources. Attraction and repulsion between two charges occurs in a straight line

between the two sources. Electric currents generate magnetic fields. In contrast to the electric force,

the magnetic force is a dipole system in which the opposites of attraction and repulsion (north and

south poles) are contained in one source and travel in a defined circular path that curves back onto

itself in a closed loop around an electric current, in a perpendicular direction to the current flow.

This restriction in a magnetic field can be thought of as a further limitation compared to flow of the

electric force. All matter exhibits magnetic properties in the presence of a magnetic field, and can be

classified in terms of degrees to which it is attracted or repulsed by it, depending on the alignment of

atoms. In some cases, attractive and repulsive forces cancel each other, resulting in net neutral

magnetic properties. The association of the earth mahabhuta with magnetism doesn’t mean all

materials made of earth are magnets – though they all interact to some degree with magnetic fields.

Rather, the abstract principle associated with earth can be related to underlying laws of nature

expressed as magnetism a bit more closely than with water. The mahabhuta of earth expresses all

five fundamental qualities. In this delineation, the magnetic force is based in the electric charge –

which is consistent with the theory of electromagnetism.

Again, Sankhya (and ancient Vedic science generally) identifies three fundamental levels – gross

relative, subtle relative, and transcendent completely unified field. Recognizing these three levels of

nature provides the needed bridge to account for many recalcitrant paradoxes in the reductive

physicalist paradigm. The fundamental particle-forces and spin states appear to match with the three

fundamental ‘forces’ and five ‘elements’ in Veda. Hopefully, this encourages more integrated

understanding of particle mechanics and wave dynamics toward seamless unity (Boyer, 2008, 2021).

Direct empirical validation of non-duality

In holistic Vedic science, the completely unified field is inherently conscious, orderly, and

dynamic – from the Totality of universal Being to the phenomenal appearance of no consciousness,

no intelligence, and no life at the level of inert physical matter. ‘Absolute’ reality is the essence of

relative realities. Infinity is the essence of space, eternity is the essence of time, immortality is the

essence of mortality; and consciousness itself, universal Being, is the essence of individual

consciousness and individual being. This top-down consciousness-mind-matter ontology has the task

of explaining how some parts of nature appear not to be conscious, even if everything is ultimately

the unified field of consciousness. This is addressed in the structure of the Veda itself. It is opposite

of the impossible task in physicalism to explain how inert randomly fluctuating fields coming from

nothing create conscious beings with causal control over their parts in an unbroken deterministic

causal chain. In Maharishi Vedic Science and Technology, holistic and reductive views are

ultimately reconciled and validated through, as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi emphasizes, development of

higher states of consciousness as the natural birthright of human beings (Boyer, 2008).

The epistemology of Yoga describes natural, systematic means to develop higher states. This

ancient tradition emphasizes the inner direct first-person perspective that has been missing in

modern science. Again, it holds that the human mind and the universe examined using it share the

same source and the same laws of nature. This correspondence allows knowledge to be gained

directly – in the inner laboratory of the mind. The direct first-person subjective approach in Yoga

complements the third-person objective approach in that it goes beyond the subject-object duality

characteristic of experience in the ordinary waking state to a non-dual unified state of consciousness.

The scientist naturally transcends the subject-object duality for direct verification of the underlying

seamless Totality. This paper suggests that for the first time in modern science a logically coherent

framework is emerging from which to address the mind-body problem, the causal efficacy of mind,

and the place and role of consciousness. This framework can be understood to be consistent with the

ancient Vedic ontology in Sankhya. Incorporating systematic first-person methods in the

epistemology of Yoga address quite subtle, long-standing quandaries in modern science and allows

for their resolution to be validated directly in higher states of human consciousness.

Summary and Conclusion

The ancient Vedic tradition as articulated in Maharishi Vedic Science and Technology is held to

be based on direct empirical experience of the structure of Veda. Rik Veda has 10 Mandalas that can

be summarized in terms of unity, quinternity, trinity, and non-duality (1st to 10th mandalas). This

paper outlined how it links to the most successful theories in modern science. It provides a

framework for progress on the total structure of nature in the model of three ontological levels: the

gross relative, the subtle relative, and the transcendent unified field. Further, the model of the gross

relative level in Vedic science, composed of five fundamental constituents emerging from three

fundamental abstract qualities, helps to integrate the fundamental particle-forces and Higgs field

toward quantum gravity and unified field theory. The systematic means to gain reliable knowledge

in Yoga complements the dualistic objective means in modern science for deeper understanding and

validation of the all-encompassing unified field. In this account, the entire universe including each of

us is infinite on the inside and appears finite on the outside. As Maharishi (2003) profoundly states:

“The individual is cosmic.”

References

Bernard, T. (1947). Hindu philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Bohm D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bohm D., Hiley BJ. (1993). The undivided universe. London: Routledge.

Boyer RW. (2012). Unpacking Quantum Wave Function Collapse: Introduction to the 3-in Ontological Model

of Nature. NeuroQuantology, Vol. 10, No. 2, 230-251.

Boyer RW. (2006). The whole creates the parts: Debunking modern science of reductive materialism.

Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the World Association for Vedic Studies, July 8-10,

Houston, Texas, USA.

Boyer RW. (2007). The big condensation – not the big bang. Quantum Mind Conference (Abstract 34). July,

University of Salzburg, Austria.

Boyer RW. (2008). Bridge to Unity: Unified Field-Based Science and Spirituality. Malibu, CA: Institute for

Advanced Research.

Boyer RW. (2021a). Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory. London: Routledge.

Boyer RW. (2021b). Holistic Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Preprint on ResearchGate.org, 03,09, 2021.

Boyer, R. W. Hensley, P. (2009). Toward an Integrated View of Particles and Forces. In Geer, G. T.

(Ed.). Consciousness-Based Education and Physics. Fairfield, IA: Maharishi University of

Management, pp. 275-298.

Carmichael H. (2007). Quantum Fluctuations of Light: A Modern Perspective on Wave/Particle Duality. In

Quantum Mechanics at the Crossroads. The Frontiers Collection. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32665-6_10

Darling D. (1996). On creating something out of nothing. New Scientist, (151) (2047), 14

September 96, 49.

Dillbeck MC. (2011) (ed.) Scientific Research on Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi

Programme: Collected Papers, Vol. 6. The Netherlands: Maharishi Vedic University Press.

Greene B. (1999). The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate

Theory. New York: Vintage Books.

Greene B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf

Guth A. (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Basic Books.

pp. 233–234. ISBN 978-0201328400.

Guth A. (2003). A golden age of cosmology (pp. 285-296). In Brockman, J. (Ed.). The New Humanists:

Science at the Edge. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, p. 294.

Hagelin J. (1987). Is Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field Theorist’s Perspective. Modern Science and

Vedic Science, 1, 1, January, 29-87.

Hagelin J. S. (1989). Restructuring Physics from Its Foundation in Light of Maharishi’s Vedic Science.

Modern Science and Vedic Science, 3, 1, 3-72.

Hensley, P. (2014). Maharishi Vedic Science and the Upanga as a Framework for Scientific Methodology.

ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI.

Herbert, N. (1985). Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. New York: Anchor Books.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1963). Science of Being and Art of Living. Washington, D.C.: Age of Enlightenment

Publications.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1967). Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad-Gita: a new translation and

commentary, chapters 1 to 6 (London: Penguin Books).

Maharishi Vedic University: Introduction. (1994). Holland: Maharishi Vedic University Press.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1997). Celebrating Perfection in Education: Dawn of Total Knowledge. India: Age

of Enlightenment Publications (Printers).

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (2003). Maharishi’s Global News Conference, December 12.

Maldacena JM. (1998). The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity". Adv. Theor.

Math. Phys. 2 (2):231-252. arXiv:hep th/9711200. Bibcode:1998AdTMP...2..231M.

doi:10.4310/atmp1998.v2n2.a1

Nader T. (2000). Human Physiology: Expression of Veda and Vedic Literature, 4th Edition. Vlodrop, The

Netherlands: Maharishi Vedic University, 2000.

Orme-Johnson DW. (2020, accessed April). www.truthabouttm.com

Penrose R. (2005). The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.

Radhakrishnan S. (1978). The Principal Upanishads. US: Humanitarian Press International (First published

1953 by George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

Randall L. (2005). Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions.

London: Penguin Books.

Scientific Research on Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme – Collected

Papers, Vols. 1-5 (1977-90), (Various Eds.). (Fairfield, IA: Maharishi University of Management Press).

Smolin L. (2001). Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. New York: Basic Books.

Talbot M (1991). The Holographic Universe. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

The Whole Creates the Parts: Debunking Modern Science of Reductive Materialism

Conference Paper

Jul 2006

Robert W. Boyer

The Big Condensation -- Not the Big Bang

Conference Paper

Jan 2007

Robert W. Boyer

Bridge to Unity: Unified Field-Based Science and Spirituality

Book

Jan 2008

Robert W. Boyer

Po1ntless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory

Book

Jan 2021

Robert W. Boyer

Unpacking Quantum Wave Function Collapse: Introduction to the 3-in-1 Ontological Model of Nature

Article

Jun 2012

Robert W. Boyer

This paper examines major interpretations of quantum wave function collapse, including the orthodox, many-worlds, decoherence, and neorealist interpretations. The interpretations increasingly support quantum reality, and are progressing toward a three-level model of the ‘explicate’ local, ‘implicate’ nonlocal, and ‘super-implicate’ unified field levels consistent with the ancient 3-in-1 Vedic model. This completely holistic model is ontologically rich enough for a logically consistent account of the causal influence of mind over matter, as well as the change from mathematical possibilities to physical actualities without positing quantum wave function collapse. NeuroQuantology | June 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 2 | Page 230-251

Three Roads to Quantum Gravity

Article