Consciousness is the hidden architecture behind fundamental and quantum physics

Physics, and science as a whole, attempts to paint an objective picture of reality. Consciousness, experience, and subjectivity are forcibly pushed out of this picture. Even where science is empirical, this empiricism rarely involves a consideration of human consciousness, but rather the readings of some mechanical measuring device, or some hypothetical abstracted sum of all perspectives – a God’s eye view or view from nowhere. But phenomenologist of science Harald A. Wiltsche paints a different picture. Physics, even in the form of quantum mechanics, has its origins in the phenomenology of human consciousness. No matter how hard scientists try, it can never escape those origins, and to truly move forward, it must understand and embrace them. Physics and phenomenology are usually taken to inhabit different worlds. Physics aims at a description of objective reality in mathematical terms. Phenomenology—the philosophical movement inaugurated by Edmund Husserl—is an a priori investigation into consciousness and into the ways things appear in experience. Physics deals with equations, invariants, and symmetries, aiming to represent reality minus observers; phenomenology seems to concern precisely what physics leaves out: subjectivity, consciousness, meaning. If the two meet at all, it is only in polite, but ultimately inconsequential, interdisciplinary dialogue.My claim is that this picture is mistaken. Physics does not stand outside phenomenology. It presupposes the very structures phenomenology seeks to analyse—above all, the structured correlation between subject and object through which objectivity first becomes intelligible. The task, therefore, is not to unite two distant domains, but to recognize a relation that has been there from the beginning.To make this more tangible, consider what physics means by objectivity. Contrary to the image sometimes promoted in popular science—objectivity as detachment from all observers—in spacetime physics, objectivity is defined by invariance across observers. A physical description is deemed objective if it holds regardless of the coordinate frame in which it is expressed.Introductory physics courses teach this as a technical lesson. We choose a coordinate system to describe a physical system. We then learn that the laws governing the behaviour of physical systems must remain valid under transformations from one frame to another. We are introduced to Galilean transformations in classical mechanics, where time is absolute, and to Lorentz transformations in special relativity, where space and time mix but the speed of light remains invariant. These allow us to shift, rotate, or boost coordinate frames relative to one another. Certain features—such as a point’s distance from the origin—change under these transformations, while others—such as the separation between points—remain invariant. It is only the latter that we treat as objective. Objectivity is thus secured not by eliminating perspective, but by relating perspectives through transformation rules.___Scientific cognition, however sophisticated, remains grounded in the structures through which objectivity is first constituted in experience.___Compare this with how phenomenology describes perceptual objectivity. When I perceive a coffee cup, only one side of it is sensuously given at any particular moment—the side currently facing me. Yet my experience is not limited to this fragment. Co-given with what is actually seen are anticipations of how the cup would appear were I to move: that it has a similarly coloured rearside, that it would present a handle from another angle, that it would remain the same object as I change position.Phenomenologists call these structured anticipations “horizons.” They are not limited to visual perception; every mode of experience—touch, hearing, action, even thought—unfolds within a horizon of possible continuations. Perception, like every other form of experience, is thus not a passive reception of isolated images but a dynamic process in which these horizons are constantly tested and revised. In the perceptual realm, it is by moving—by shifting my gaze, by walking around the object, by turning it in my hands—that I transform what was merely anticipated into what is actually seen. What was the hidden rearside becomes the new front, and so on.It is through this process of exploring horizons that some aspects of the seen bodies—for instance their shape—are experienced as objective. Yet the kind of objectivity at issue here is not a property attached like a label to one particular side of a thing. If a perceptual episode were frozen at a single instant, we would never experience the cup as objectively cylindrical. The sense of a stable shape arises only as an invariant structure spanning the entire perceptual episode. As we move, the cup’s outline changes: from above circular, from the side elongated, from certain angles partially occluded. Yet the relation between shifting vantage point and changing profile follows a regular pattern. It is this invariant structure across variation that grounds our experience of the cup as a single, objectively cylindrical object. The cup’s objectivity does not consist in a hidden intrinsic form standing behind appearances, but in the lawful correlation between shifting perspectives and the changing profiles that appear.

SUGGESTED READING
Phenomenal evidence
By Philipp Berghofer

Phenomenologists would insist that what we have encountered here is not a loose analogy between spacetime physics and perception. The very meaning of coordinate frames and transformation rules presupposes the structures we have just described. A coordinate system requires an origin—a zero point from which positions are determined. In lived experience, such an origin is given in the oriented body—what Husserl called the “zero point” of spatial orientation. The axes of a Cartesian grid formalize directional articulations—left and right, up and down, forward and back—that are first encountered in embodied orientation. Transformation rules, in turn, formalize the systematic ways appearances change as we move. What in perception is kinaesthetic variation becomes, in physics, a relation between coordinate frames. These patterns of invariant identity across variation are not optional psychological scaffolding. Without an antecedent grasp of identity-through-perspectival-variation—first operative in embodied orientation—the very idea of relating coordinate frames as equivalent descriptions would lack its sense as a procedure for securing objectivity.This does not mean that physics is anchored in the specific traits of human embodiment. Physics abstracts from what merely feels natural to us. It may deploy polar coordinates, curvilinear systems, or the parameters of high-dimensional configuration spaces. Yet any such scheme must make possible the systematic tracking of relations across transformations. Abstraction does not abolish orientation; it formalizes it.In Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics—formulations that recast motion not in terms of forces but in terms of variational principles or energy functions—coordinates no longer need to correspond to positions in space at all. They become generalized degrees of freedom—abstract parameters indexing possible states of a system. Spatial intuition recedes, but the formal structure remains: a choice of parameters, transformation rules between descriptions, and invariants that define what is physically real.Given all this, the larger point is this: scientific cognition, however sophisticated, remains grounded in the structures through which objectivity is first constituted in experience. The edifice of theoretical physics does not float free of what Husserl called the “life-world”: the pre-theoretical world of lived perception, practical orientation, and taken-for-granted meaning within which scientific abstraction first becomes possible. Rather, physics radicalizes operations already at work within this field of experience.Hermann Weyl, one of the most mathematically sophisticated physicists of the twentieth century and a careful reader of phenomenology, put the point with striking clarity when he described the “constructions of physics [as] natural prolongation of operations the mind performs in perception.” For Weyl, phenomenological reflection was not philosophical ornament. It informed his critique of Einstein’s geometrical framework for general relativity and led him to propose an alternative structure. Although his original proposal did not succeed, it introduced the idea of gauge invariance—an idea that became foundational for twentieth-century physics. In this sense, phenomenology left a visible imprint on the conceptual development of physics.Up to this point, we have remained within spacetime physics, where notions such as position, motion, and invariance still resonate with embodied orientation. Quantum mechanics, however, appears to inhabit an altogether different conceptual universe. Its states are vectors in mathematical Hilbert space; its observables are operators; its predictions concern probabilities rather than trajectories. If physics were ever to escape its phenomenological grounding, one might expect it to be here. Yet it is precisely here that the relation between subject and object—a central concern of phenomenology—returns with renewed force.___Early reflections by Fritz London and Edmond Bauer treated measurement not as a physical interaction but as involving a transition from potentiality to actuality that cannot be described without reference to the reflecting subject.___The formalism of quantum mechanics no longer assigns definite trajectories to physical systems. Instead, a system is described by a state—a vector in Hilbert space—that encodes probabilities for possible measurement outcomes. Crucially, these outcomes are not simply revealed but defined relative to the experimental arrangement. This contextual feature is reflected in the mathematics itself: many physical quantities are represented by operators whose order of application matters. Measuring A and then B can yield a different result from measuring B and then A. For such pairs of quantities, the corresponding experimental setups are incompatible: they cannot be simultaneously determined with arbitrary precision.This feature is not an interpretive embellishment. It is built into the mathematical structure of the theory. Non-commuting observables, the superposition principle, and the probabilistic Born rule—the principle that allows us to extract experimentally testable probabilities from the quantum state—all reflect the fact that physical properties cannot be treated as context-free attributes possessed independently of measurement. The attribution of a property is inseparable from the conditions under which it is determined.If objectivity has never meant detachment from all perspectives, quantum mechanics makes this impossible to ignore. Just as spacetime physics secures objectivity through invariance under transformations of coordinate frames, quantum mechanics secures it through the stability of probabilistic relations across reproducible experimental contexts. In this sense, quantum mechanics does not abolish objectivity; it redefines it. The relation between a system and the conditions of its possible determination becomes structurally primary. Subject and object no longer appear as independent blocks later connected by observation, but as poles within a relational framework that determines what can count as a property at all. This does not entail that reality depends on human consciousness in any psychological sense. The point is structural: what counts as a property is defined within a rule-governed framework of possible interventions.

SUGGESTED READING
Phenomenology solves quantum puzzles
By Steven French

This is precisely the terrain on which phenomenology has always operated. From Husserl onward, the claim was neither that reality is “simply out there” nor that it is a projection of consciousness. Rather, objectivity is constituted through structured relations between appearance and possible variation. Objectivity, once again, emerges not from the elimination of perspective, but from invariance within structured contexts. Quantum mechanics forces physics to confront this same structural feature at a deeper level: properties are not self-standing attributes waiting to be uncovered, but arise within determinate experimental contexts governed by reproducible rules.Several strands in contemporary quantum foundations connect explicitly to these issues. Early reflections by Fritz London and Edmond Bauer treated measurement not as a physical interaction but as involving a transition from potentiality to actuality that cannot be described without reference to the reflecting subject—without thereby lapsing into “consciousness causes collapse” mysticism. More recent approaches, such as QBism, interpret the quantum state as encoding an agent’s expectations about future experience, thereby resonating with the phenomenological insight that experience always unfolds within a horizon of anticipated possibilities. Reconstruction programs—often inspired by operational or information-theoretic principles—seek to derive the formalism from constraints on experimental interventions and outcomes.These approaches differ in ambition and metaphysical commitment. Yet they share a recognition: quantum mechanics does not sit comfortably with the classical image of a world composed of context-independent properties. The theory’s own structure forces us to rethink what objectivity can mean.Phenomenology does not supply ready-made solutions to these puzzles. But it provides conceptual tools for articulating the relational conditions under which objects, properties, and invariants come into view at all. If physics has always secured objectivity through structured variation—through invariance across coordinate frames, across transformations, across experimental contexts—then its most advanced theories do not escape this logic. They radicalize it.The question, then, is no longer whether physics and phenomenology should be united. As physics confronts its own conceptual foundations, the challenge is to bring into view the structures phenomenology has analyzed since its inception—and to explore how they can illuminate the meaning of objectivity in modern theory.