The Insides and Outsides of 'Reality': Exploring Possibilities
By: @Jack Cummins

What was once considered as metaphysics has passed into the domain of science, to a large extent, within contemporary philosophy. This essay is a brief discussion on the dialogue between science, especially quantum physics, and philosophical understanding of 'reality'.

The concept of 'reality is central to such discussion. Westerhoff(2025) suggests that reality means 'everything that we can see, smell, touch and so forth, ' but also includes electrons, numbers and experiences which feel 'real'. Consensus is one measure, but even that may be called into question by shared delusions. However, he also refers to the science fiction writer, Philip K Dick's view that 'reality is that which, if you stop believing in it does not go away'. Leaving aside the nature of impermanence, Dick's argument does hold as an important marker.

There are many positions on understanding reality, including realism, idealism, materialism and phenomenonalism. Roger Penrose(2025) argues that common sense thinking includes that which is made of matter, but this leaves out 'the reality of minds', as well as 'concepts, such as truth, virtue or beauty. He goes on to consider the perspective of quantum physics: 'quantum reality is strange in many ways', as, ' Individual particles can at one time be in two places_ or three or four, or spread throughout some region, perhaps wriggling like a wave.'

Penrose develops the idea that mathematical entities may be like the abstract ones in Plato's thinking. This involves the paradox of minds arising from the physical or the physical arising from mind. His own position 'is to avoid this immediate paradox by allowing for three different kinds of reality: the physical, the mental, and the Platonic-mathematical with something (as yet) profoundly mysterious in the relationship between the three.'

In thinking about this, it is worth noting the following quote from the physicist, Carlo Rovelli(2025):
'the new world that is emerging is firstly that reality can only be understood by remembering that there is nothing outside of it. But it is also that reality can also be described in terms of interactions.'
Rovelli is leaning towards idealism here.

An idealist interpretation of quantum physics has been challenged byDonald Hoffmann(2025). He takes on board the questionable issue of there being an absolute objective reality, but is wary of lopsided thinking. He suggests a possible interface between subjectivity and objectivity, involving 'trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness by building a theory in which the underlying reality emerges from a vast network of interacting agents and their experiences.'

At this point, I wish to digress a little to refer to the ideas of the philosopher, John MacMurray(1891- 1976). Colin Stott(2025) has pointed to MacMurray's claim that Western academic philosophy has 'dug itself into a hole', through ignoring embodiment as an aspect of perception. Stott suggests that this involved taking 'fundamental conceptual pairings, such as subjective/objective, thought/action, individual/society, theory/practice and severed them...'

In restoring a fuller picture of reality, there may be a way of going beyond such dualities. Nevertheless, I wish to argue that the dialogue between science and philosophy needs to recognise epistemological limits. That is because, the observer only views a partial reality, much like a dice with all six numbers but when the dice is tossed you only observe one number at a time' (Mehrotra, 2020). Yet, despite the partiality of observation, and thinking, it is possible to build a composite picture. But, even then, as Hoffman argues, it is not possible to go beyond human subjective experience entirely as a framework of complete objectivity. Of course, there is the potential of AI, I guess, but that is likely modelled on anthropocentric models and understanding.

In conclusion, I am aware that I have put together a jigsaw puzzle, or skeleton sketch based on my recent reading. To process them requires the oxygen of more detailed exposition and analysis. At this point, I feel rather dizzy and overwhelmed to go further. The ongoing dialogue between science and philosophical reflection may give some 'breathing space' for synthesis of ideas and perspectives. Also, as a closing remark, it is worth bearing in mind the possible limits of quantum physics and the linguistics of science. As Strassler(2025), claims 'The language we use in physics obscures some of our most beautiful and fascinating discoveries.'

References

1. The follow articles are from 'New Scientist: How to Think About Reality' (Cossins, D, ed, 2025)

Hoffmann, D, 'We assume our senses see reality as it is, but that could be an illusion of evolution'

Penrose, R, 'To address the nature of reality, we need to understand its connection to consciousness and mathematics'

Rovelli, C, 'Foreword'

Strassler, M, 'The language we use in physics obscures some of our most beautiful and fascinating discoveries'

Westerhoff, J, 'When we ask whether something is real, this is what we have in mind'

2. Mehrotra, S, 2020, 'Mind and Matter: Duality in Nature'

3. Stott, C, 'Restoring Our Humanity with John Macmurray, in, 'Philosophy Now': Issue 167, April/May 2025