Until now, the physics that has been discussed is based firmly on experimental observations and, as long as the alternative interpretations of quantum theory that were presented are included, it would probably receive consensus agreement among most physicists. However, the present chapter is much more speculative. In it we present some of the results from Amit Goswami’s 1993 book, The Self-Aware Universe, together with a critique of some of the difficulties in his quantum model of the brain.

Goswami attempts to place his quantum theory of consciousness within the overall context of monistic idealism. In so doing, Goswami postulates that consciousness has the following structure:

a) Consciousness, the ground of all being, is primary.

b) Consciousness contains the following three realms: the world of matter and the world of mental phenomena, which are the immanent realms, and the archetypal realm, which is the transcendental realm. All of these realms exist within and as consciousness, so there is nothing outside of consciousness.

c) The transcendental realm is the source of the immanent matter and mental realms. In this theory, the immanent realms are the phenomenal manifestation of the transcendental realm.

We must remind ourselves that, as before, we are dealing with a theory which is presumed to be a conceptual representation of reality. However, no concepts, no matter how subtle or sophisticated, can describe reality. At best, it can only be a pointer to the actual experience of reality.

Traditional idealism holds that consciousness is the primary reality, and that all objects, whether material or mental, are objects within consciousness. However, it does not explain how the individual subject or experiencer in the subject-object experience arises. Even traditional monistic idealism, however, states that the consciousness of the individual subject is identical to the consciousness which is the ground of all being. The sense of separation that we feel is an illusion, as has always been claimed by the mystics.

The mystics proclaim that separation does not exist in reality. It is ignorance of our true nature that gives us the illusion of separateness, and it is this sense of separateness that is the reason for all of our problems. Monistic idealism not only tells us that the sense of separation is illusion, but Goswami’s interpretation of quantum theory within monistic idealism goes further by purporting to explain how the illusion arose.

If the wavefunction is collapsed by consciousness, materialism cannot explain the interaction which causes the collapse. Dualism has the problems discussed in Chapter 1, so we are left only with idealism. Now we must ask the question, is idealism, particularly monistic idealism, compatible with quantum physics? Goswami says that not only is it compatible, but it solves its problems of interpretation as well. Furthermore it solves the paradox of transcendence and immanence in mysticism.

From our discussion of nonlocality in Section 4.3,  we saw that even though wavefunction collapse is instantaneous everywhere, it does not imply transfer of energy or mass at velocities exceeding the velocity of light, so nonlocality does not violate special relativity. However, there are problems in mathematically describing wavefunction collapse in space-time because of the difficulty in making such a description consistent with the special theory of relativity. Furthermore, in monistic idealism, time and space do not appear until the manifestation appears, so the wavefunction as the source of manifestation cannot exist in space-time. Goswami circumvents these difficulties by arguing that the wavefunction exists not in space-time, but in a transcendental domain. The transcendental realm must not be thought of as including, or as being included in, the physical world of space-time. Transcendental in this context means absence of space-time. The transcendental realm cannot be located or perceived. In mysticism, it is pointed to, but only by pointing away from all that is perceived: not this, not that, not anything known.

Recall that, in our adaptation of Plato’s cave allegory (see Section 1.4), the material world consists of the shadows of Plato’s transcendental archetypes. In Goswami’s picture, the wavefunctions are the equivalent of the transcendental archetypes. Consciousness manifests the immanent from the transcendental by collapsing the wavefunction. All of this occurs entirely within consciousness.

We recall that the cat paradox was invented by Schrödinger to point out the strange consequences of coupling the microscopic with the macroscopic in such a way that both must be included in the wavefunction. Let us review this experiment.

A radioactive atom, a Geiger counter, a vial of poison gas, and a cat are in a box. The atom has a 50% chance of decaying in one hour. If it decays, the Geiger counter is triggered, causing the poison to be released and the cat to die. If it does not decay, the cat is still alive after one hour. At one hour, I look to see if the cat is alive or dead. We assume that everything in the box can be described by quantum theory, so before I look there is nothing but a wavefunction. The wavefunction contains a superposition of two terms, one describing a dead cat and one describing a live cat. Before I look, there is neither a dead nor a live cat. When I look, I do not see a superposition, I see either a dead or a live cat. The dead cat part of the wavefunction represents a cat that may have been dead with increasing probability for any time up to one hour. (This discussion ignores the effects of the environment on the wavefunction of the cat before observation occurs. Examples of such effects are the result of air molecules bombarding the cat, and heat and light radiation being emitted and absorbed by the cat. Recent theoretical research indicates that such effects transform the wavefunction of the cat from a pure state to a mixed state, i.e., it then represents either a live cat or a dead cat, not a superposition of the two. However, until observation, it still is nothing but a wavefunction, and it is still unknown whether this wavefunction represents a live cat or a dead cat. For our purposes, we may ignore such problems because our focus is on what occurs at the moment of observation.)

The idealist interpretation of Goswami states that, before observation, the cat is in a superposition of live and dead states, and this superposition is collapsed by our observation. This is similar to the orthodox interpretation, except that in the idealist case, the superposition of states is in the transcendental realm, while in the orthodox case, the superposition is in physical space-time. Any conscious observer including the cat itself may collapse the wavefunction. Different observations, whether by the same or by different observers, will in general have different results, but only within the limits allowed by quantum theory and the probabilities given by it. The wavefunction before observation, and the materialized object at the time of observation, both constitute the objective reality. However, obviously this objective reality is not independent of observation. We shall use the term weak objectivity to refer to a reality that depends on the observer, as opposed to strong objectivity, which refers to a reality that is independent of the observer.

Suppose two observers simultaneously look in a box in which the wavefunction still has not collapsed. Which observer collapses the wavefunction? It is the same paradox as that of two detectors and two observers in the Stern-Gerlach experiment. The only resolution is that the consciousness that collapses the wavefunction must be unitive and nonlocal (universal). This means that what appears to be individual consciousness is in reality universal consciousness. In other words, the consciousness that I think is mine is identical to the consciousness that you think is yours. This does not mean that the contents of your mind are the same as the contents of my mind. These are individual, and depend on our individual sensory mechanisms and brain structures.

In quantum theory, observation is not a continuous process, but a rapid sequence of discrete snapshot-like observations. "Between" successive observations, there is only the wavefunction, in most cases a very complex one. This wavefunction includes not only the external world, but also our own bodies. Change occurs only "between" observations, but remember that the wavefunction "between" observations exists in the transcendental realm outside of time, so change actually occurs discontinuously. Only the wavefunction can change and it changes in accordance with quantum theory. (In classical Indian philosophy, the duration of one discrete observation is called a kshana, which is stated to be 1/4500 of a minute, or 0.0133 second.)

At the present time, there is no evidence that quantum theory cannot in principle describe any physical object, including cats and our own bodies. This is an enormous extrapolation from the most complex, but still relatively simple, objects which have been experimentally shown to obey quantum theory. Nevertheless, we shall continue to make the assumption that everything in the physical world is quantum mechanical. As we have already shown, nothing quantum mechanical can collapse the wavefunction. Collapse must be a result of something outside physics, i.e., outside space-time.

If nonlocal, unitive consciousness collapses the wavefunction, how can change occur at all? Why does it not cause continuous collapse and prevent change from occurring? Goswami answers that collapse also requires immanent awareness, that is, a sensory apparatus coupled to a brain structure must also be present. Consciousness without immanent awareness cannot cause collapse. The limitations of the physical structure of the brain allow only separate, discrete observations to be made.

How did the brain appear if the brain is required in order for it to appear? The explanation is that only the potential, for a brain, i.e. a brain wavefunction is required. Nonlocal consciousness collapses the entire wavefunction as soon as the wavefunction for a brain evolves. The brain, body, and their surroundings are simultaneously materialized.

We now face the problem of understanding why the external world seems so real to us. We may ask, if it is not real, why is science so successful at describing it? All three of the conventional interpretations of quantum theory that we have discussed posit a real external world. We shall disregard nonlocal hidden variables theory for the moment because, being a materialist theory, it does not explain or require consciousness. The other two are the many-worlds and the orthodox. These are similar to each other because conscious observation is required in both, in many-worlds to define a branching, in the orthodox interpretation to collapse the wavefunction. Their similarity is even greater if we suppose that in many-worlds, consciousness selects and manifests a branch in the material world while the other branches remain as wavefunctions and are never materialized. There is, however, a major difference between these two interpretations and one based on monistic idealism as used by Goswami. Both the many-worlds and the orthodox interpretations hypothesize that wavefunctions exist in ordinary space-time before consciousness defines a branching or collapses the wavefunction, while Goswami hypothesizes that wavefunctions exist in a transcendental realm prior to collapse. The difference is significant because the conventional interpretations avoid the problems of describing a wavefunction in a transcendental realm, while Goswami’s interpretation avoids the problem of how space-time can exist without observers. We shall discuss this difference in more detail in the last section of this chapter.

Using Goswami’s interpretation, we now must ask the question, in what form did the universe exist for billions of years before conscious observers started collapsing wavefunctions? We have difficulty in answering this question because of the assumed context of time in which the question is asked. If the universe is a wavefunction in the transcendental domain "until" the first conscious observation, and the transcendental domain is outside of space-time, then time itself does not exist until observations begin. There is a simultaneous manifestation of space-time, the observed universe, and the brain-mind. This does not occur "until" the wavefunction for a sufficiently complex brain-mind is present so that a sentient being with awareness can be manifested simultaneously with the observation. Actually, this process is occurring constantly: Space-time, observing objects and observed objects are constantly and simultaneously being materialized by collapse of the wavefunction.

Nonlocal consciousness collapses the wavefunction. Space-time, perceived objects and perceiving objects simultaneously appear. Some of the perceived objects, many of which are also perceiving objects, form the external, objective, empirical reality. The external perceived objects are all macroscopic and classical, therefore they have essentially no uncertainties in position and velocity. They appear to be stable because, while their wavefunctions change "between" observations, in perceived time this happens slowly. Changes include the spreading of a tightly bunched wavefunction representing a sharply localized object, to a more spread out wavefunction representing more uncertainty in position. Perceiving objects derive their self-consciousness and immanent awareness from the nonlocal, universal consciousness that materializes them. We will see later how this happens.

None of the traditional idealist philosophies explains how the personal "I" experience arises. This is such a persistent and compelling experience that it must be explained.

Goswami proposes a model of the brain-mind that has a quantum part and a classical part which are coupled together, just as the Schrödinger cat experiment has a quantum nucleus coupled to a classical detector-cat system, and the Stern-Gerlach experiment has an electron coupled to a classical detector. Remember that in this coupling, the so-called classical parts become quantum-like because they are forced to take on quantum wavefunctions consisting of as many superposed parts as the quantum part. In justifying the quantum part, Goswami notes that the mind has several properties that are quantum-like:

a) Uncertainty and complementarity. A thought has feature, which is instantaneous content, analogous to the position of a particle. It also has association, which is movement, analogous to the velocity or momentum of a particle. A thought occurs in the field of awareness, which is analogous to space. Feature and association are complementary. If we concentrate on one and clearly identify it (small uncertainty), we lose sight of the other (large uncertainty).

b) Discontinuity, or jumps. In creative thinking, new concepts appear discontinuously.

c) Nonlocality. Distant viewing experiments may be explained in terms of persistent correlations between two minds which had initially become correlated by the intention and preparation of the experiments. This would not require information transfer and therefore would be similar to the nonlocal correlations in the Aspect experiments. The same thing may be true in some out-of-body experiences, such as when an anesthetized patient "sees" surgery being performed on his/her body as though from a vantage point above the operating room. Such correlations may be explained in terms of nonlocal minds.

d) Superposition. Important psychological experiments by Tony Marcel, not discussed here, can be interpreted in terms of a model of the subject’s brain which contains a quantum part that exists in a superposition of possibilities until the subject recognizes the object.

In Goswami’s model, the brain consisting of classical and quantum parts exists as a wavefunction in the transcendental domain (not in space-time) "until" wavefunction collapse materializes it. Think of the Stern-Gerlach experiment or the Schrödinger cat paradox. "Prior" to collapse, the quantum states of the quantum part (the spin or the radioactive nucleus) are correlated with the classical states of the classical part (the spin detector or the particle detector and cat) to form a superposition in the transcendental domain. Nonlocal consciousness collapses the wavefunction of the entire system into one of the states allowed by the classical part. The mind consists of the experiences of these collapsed physical states of the brain.

The presence of the quantum part provides a wide range of possibilities available to be materialized. In our simple analogies, these possibilities were the spin-up and spin-down states in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, or the decay and no-decay states of the radioactive nucleus in the Schrödinger cat example. Of course, the quantum brain has far more possibilities.

Just as in our analogies, the presence of the classical part is necessary for collapse to occur, and to provide the experienced final states. In our analogies, these final states were the observed states of detector-on or detector-off, and live-cat or dead-cat. Only the states of the classical part can be experienced by consciousness, exactly as in our analogies. These states must be distinct and nonoverlapping to correspond to our experience of only one distinct event at a time. They must also be memory states, which are states that are irreversible in time and with wavefunctions which change only slowly, so that persistent records of the collapsed events are made, leading to a sense of continuity in our experiences.

Unitive, nonlocal consciousness chooses the state to be experienced, but because the classical brain is localized and isolated, the experience of the final brain states is local and individual. Although we are aware of the experience of an event, we are unaware of the choosing process which collapses the wavefunction to result in the event, i.e., the choice is made unconsciously. Thus, when we are passively observing passing events, the time sequence appears to proceed on its own, without our intervention.

Normally, we identify with only the experiences associated with a particular brain-body. In order to explain how consciousness might identify with a such a physical object (the combined sensory mechanism-brain structure), Goswami utilizes the concept of a tangled hierarchy which he borrowed from the 1980 book by Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. He gave the following analogy in order to illustrate this concept. For this, we introduce the concept of logical types. An example is the following:

1. People who make statements

2. Statements

An object which defines the context for another object is of a higher logical type than that of the other object. In the example above, the first item identifies objects (people) which define the context for the second item (statements that people make). Thus, people are of a higher logical type than statements.

Next we define a self-referential system. An example is the following:

1. The following statement is true.

2. The preceding statement is true.

Both of these items are of the same logical type since they are both statements. However, they refer to each other, making the system self-referential. In addition, the statements reinforce each other, strengthening the validity of each.

Now consider a paradoxical system of items of the same logical type:

1. The following statement is true.

2. The preceding statement is false.

If the first statement is true, the second statement makes it false, thus leading to an infinite series of opposite conclusions. This is a paradox. All paradoxes arise from self-referential systems, i.e., systems that refer to themselves rather than to something outside of themselves.

We can reformulate both the reinforcing and paradoxical systems as single statements:

3. This statement is true. (Reinforcing)

4. This statement is false. (Paradoxical infinite series)

Now consider the following self-referential system:

5. I am a liar.

Let us consider three alternate interpretations of this statement.

a) If the "I" is the statement itself, then this does not mix logical types and is equivalent to the paradoxical infinite series of statement number 4 above.

b) However, if I am the person that is making the statement, I am of a higher logical type than (I am the context of) the statement I am making. Now there need be no paradox because the statement does not refer to itself or to another statement of the same logical type, but to I, which is of a higher logical type. If the statement does not affect its context, there is no mixing of the level of the statement and the level of its context. We do not yet have a tangled hierarchy because the clear delineation between the two levels is maintained.

One can say that the infinite series of interpretation a) may be discontinuously terminated by a shift in the meaning of "I" in order to obtain interpretation b). In this way, the paradox is eliminated.

c) Now suppose I start to think about the statement, and I begin to take it seriously, perhaps even believing it. The statement is affecting its context, and it changes it. I could actually become a liar, a radical change in the context (assuming that I was not a liar initially). If I become a thoroughgoing, inveterate liar and cannot make a truthful statement, a paradox develops. If I cannot tell the truth, and I state that I am a liar, then I am not lying, etc. The two levels have become inextricably entangled, a paradoxical, tangled hierarchy.

In the brain-mind system, the brain consisting of quantum and classical parts is stimulated by an input from the physical sensory system, leading to a superposition of all possibilities of the coupled quantum-classical brain. This quantum state continues until the wavefunction is collapsed by nonlocal consciousness. In the next two sections, we shall see how the level of the physical brain and the level of nonlocal consciousness might be mixed together to form a self-referential, tangled hierarchy, resulting in the experience of individual self-consciousness. This is analogous to interpretation c) of statement 5 above.

At the first collapse of a brain-mind wavefunction, both observing object (subject) and observed object manifest simultaneously. Goswami explains this collapse as self-referential collapse because the brain wavefunction acts in concert with nonlocal consciousness to collapse its own wavefunction. The result is not only manifestation but also entanglement of the level of nonlocal consciousness with the level of the physical system, a tangled hierarchy. This results in identification of nonlocal consciousness with the physical mechanism. This identification is necessary for the life processes of the physical mechanism to occur. It also produces the experience of an unlimited, indefinite awareness sometimes called "I am" awareness, and unaware consciousness thereby becomes aware. Goswami calls this the quantum self, even though both classical and quantum brains are necessary to produce collapse. We may also call this state the unconditioned self.

The classical brain records in its memory every experience (every collapse) in response to a sensory stimulus. If the same or similar stimulus is again presented to the brain-mind, the memory of the previous stimulus is triggered, and this memory acts as a restimulus to the quantum brain. The combined quantum-classical wavefunction is again collapsed and the new memory reinforces the old one. Repeated similar stimuli inevitably lead ultimately to an almost totally conditioned response, one in which the probability of a new, creative response approaches zero. The brain then behaves almost like a classical deterministic system. This is depicted in the following diagram:

The repeated restimulation of the quantum system by the classical system results in a chain of secondary collapses. These secondary collapses correspond to evoked memories, habitual reactions, introspective experiences, and conditioned motor responses. However, we can see evidence for the functioning of the quantum brain even in introspection and memory because of the quantum characteristics of the mind that we discussed previously.

The secondary processes and repeated running of the learned programs of the classical brain conceal from us the essential role of nonlocal consciousness in collapsing the wavefunction and creating an experience. The result is the persistent thought of an entity (the I-concept) which resides in the mind. Now, a second tangled hierarchy can occur, this time between nonlocal consciousness and the I-concept, resulting in identification of nonlocal consciousness with the I-concept. When this occurs, the illusion of what we call the ego, or I-entity, is formed. The ego, or false self, is an assumed separate entity that is associated with the classical, conditioned, deterministic brain, while the quantum self is an experience which is dominated by the full range of possibilities of the quantum brain. To recapitulate, two distinct levels of identification (tangled hierarchy) occur, the first resulting in the quantum self, the second resulting in the false self, ego, or fictitious I-entity.

The ego does not exist. It is nothing but a presumption--the presumption that, if thinking, experiencing, or doing occur, there must be an entity that thinks, experiences, or does. It is the false identification of nonlocal consciousness with a thought in the mind. As a result of this false identification, the experience of freedom that is really a property of the quantum self becomes limited and is falsely attributed to the ego, resulting in the assumption that the I-entity has free will instead of being a completely conditioned product of repeated experiences. If we believe that we are egos, we will believe that our consciousnesses are separate from other consciousnesses and that we are free to choose. However, at the same time, we will contradictorily perceive ourselves as being inside and subject to space-time and as the victim of our environment. The reality is that our true identity is the nonlocal, unitive, unlimited consciousness which transcends space-time, and that the experience of our true identity is the infinitely free, unconditioned quantum self.

In this discussion, we must make a clear distinction between the two types of experience which are related to the two types of processes occurring in the brain. The first process to occur in response to a sensory stimulus is the establishment of a specific wavefunction in the combined quantum-classical brain. This is a superposition of all possibilities of which the brain is capable in response to the stimulus. Nonlocal consciousness collapses the wavefunction. Remember that in this first tangled hierarchy, the contextual level of nonlocal consciousness acts upon the level of the physical brain, which reacts back on the contextual level, which reacts back on . . . . . etc., and the two levels become inextricably mixed. This tangled hierarchy gives rise to awareness and perception, but still without the concept of an entity which perceives or observes. Goswami variously calls this primary awareness, pure awareness, the quantum self, the unconditioned self, and the atman. It is important to realize that the unconditioned self is not an entity, thing or object. Pure experience needs no entity. In this state there is no experiencer and nothing experienced. There is only experiencing itself.

The other type of experience is related to the secondary processes in the brain. These are the processes in which the classical brain restimulates the quantum brain, and the combined quantum-classical wavefunction again collapses into the same or similar classical brain state, which restimulates the quantum brain, etc. After sufficient conditioning of the classical brain, the quantum-classical brain tends to respond in a deterministic pattern of habitual states. Included in these states is the concept of a separate entity. In the second tangled hierarchy, nonlocal consciousness identifies with this concept, and the assumed I-entity or ego arises. When we are in this identified condition, we are normally unaware both of the tangled hierarchies and of the quantum self.

Identification that leads to the illusory I-entity probably arises during early childhood when the child has been conditioned to think of itself as a separate person. This occurs after the child has been called repeatedly by its name, has been referred to as "you" (implying that there is another), has been instructed, "Do this!", "Don’t do that!", and generally has been treated as being an independent person separate from its mother. However, one should not think that this conditioning process is something that can be avoided, since it is a necessary part of child development.

The ego is presumed to be the thinker, chooser, and doer. However, it is absurd to think that a mere concept could actually be an agent with the power to think, choose, or do. The ego is nothing but a figment of the imagination, does not exist as an entity, and has no power whatsoever. In reality there is never a thinker, chooser, or doer, but only a tangled hierarchy between nonlocal consciousness (which is not an entity) and the conditioned quantum-classical brain.

There is only one consciousness. Our consciousness is nonlocal consciousness. My consciousness is identical to your consciousness. Only the contents are different. The entities that we falsely think we are result from identification of this consciousness with a concept in the conditioned mind.

Identification with the hard conditioning and rigid isolation of the fictitious ego is relaxed in so-called transpersonal, or peak, experiences, which lead to a creative expansion of the self-image. These experiences approach, but are not identical to, those of the quantum self, since identification with a self-concept is still present, although the self-concept becomes expanded.

The pure quantum self is experienced as pure awareness, pure existence, or pure subjectivity, in which there is no entity at all, and which arises when the unconditioned quantum wavefunction is first collapsed, or alternatively after disidentification from the self-concept has occurred. Pure awareness-existence is what we really are, and is the same as the atman of Eastern philosophy, or the no-self of Buddhism. The goal of all spiritual practice is to disidentify from the fictitious I-entity and to realize our true nature.

We are now in a position to complete our discussion of freedom. Goswami uses the term choice to mean the nonvolitional action of nonlocal consciousness in selecting a particular possibility out of the range of possibilities defined by the wavefunction. (Choice is nonvolitional because there is no entity to exert volitional choice.) Without identification, choice is free. With identification, choice becomes limited. However, even as egos, we are aware and we know that we are aware. Therefore identification of awareness with the I-concept is never actually complete, and this allows the possibility of disidentification from the false self.

We found in Chapter 5 that freedom of choice does not exist in a separate entity. Therefore, even if the ego were real it would still not have the freedom to choose. However, because the ego is nothing but a fictional self concept, it does not even exist as an entity. Therefore its freedom is doubly fictitious. All choice is the nonvolitional choice of nonlocal consciousness, and complete freedom is the experience of unconditioned, disidentified pure awareness-existence, the quantum self.

We come now to a paradox. The ego is the belief that it is free to choose, but it is not. The quantum self is freedom itself, but it is not a separate entity that can choose. Remember that the belief in free will depends on a perceived separation or duality between a controller and a controlled. Within the quantum self there is no separation or isolation--there is no entity--so there is no duality. Hence, the concept of free will cannot arise in the state of pure, or primary, awareness. Whenever we experience infinite freedom, it is a result of a momentary disidentification from the conditioned ego belief, permitting the experience of the freedom of the unidentified quantum self to be revealed. This is true freedom, without the restrictions of being a limited individual, and without the burden of having to make choices.

This experience of true freedom is present only when disidentification occurs. What we think of normally as free will involves only noncreative, conditioned "choices", which are of course not free. The illusion of freedom in these comes from the belief that we are separate from our surroundings, and can operate on it according to our will. Without this belief in separation, we would not have the belief in free will.

How can we apply this knowledge to our personal lives? We have seen that our consciousness really is nonlocal universal consciousness, and the goal of all spiritual practice is to experience the pure freedom of unconditioned, pure awareness-existence. This can happen only when disidentification from the fictitious ego-entity has occurred. The first step in this process is to realize that identification is the problem, and therefore disidentification is the solution. The next step is to engage in whatever practices will facilitate this disidentification. We shall discuss some such practices in Part 3.

Goswami’s hypothesis of a quantum brain is presently only a hypothesis, since it is not known whether there is such a thing. This is not a fundamental problem in a speculative model, because it is a hypothesis which can be put to experimental test, and presumably some day we shall know whether such a thing exists.

However, there is a deeper problem with his model. The transcendental realm is hypothesized to contain the wavefunction, yet the wavefunction as normally conceived is a function of time and space, which in fact do not appear "until" wavefunction collapse. A more general way of stating the same difficulty is that concepts in quantum theory are usually conceived within the context of time and space, so it is in principle impossible to use such quantum concepts in a realm in which space-time is absent.

One might think that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory, which postulates the existence of ordinary space-time since the beginning of the universe (the big bang), would avoid the difficulty of trying to postulate a wavefunction in a transcendental realm since all wavefunctions would then exist in ordinary space-time. However, this raises the old metaphysical question of whether an objective reality, such as existed before the first conscious observers, can exist if it is not observable even in principle. As we have seen in Section 1.1, such an objective reality can never be proved to exist and can only be an assumption.

A possible escape from this problem is the following. What we normally consider to be a concept within space-time, such as Schrödinger’s equation, can exist in a more abstract form in the transcendental realm (this will be discussed further in Section 8.4). For example, as we discussed in Section 3.2, an early form of quantum theory invented by Werner Heisenberg was written entirely in terms of mathematical quantities called matrices, rather than in terms of equations in space-time.

Goswami’s model is useful in emphasizing the importance of seeing that we are limited by identification. In fact, knowing the exact mechanism for identification is not necessary for the validity or understanding of Parts 2 and 3 of this course. What is necessary is to see that identification is an ongoing process which is never complete, so it is always escapable, and therefore we are not forever doomed to suffer. Disidentification is possible at any time for any person.