*** ## The Consilience of Being **A Synthesis of Physics, Metaphysics, and Consciousness** **Version:** 1.0 **Date**: August 14, 2025 [Rowan Brad Quni](mailto:[email protected]), [QNFO](https://qnfo.org/) ORCID: [0009-0002-4317-5604](https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4317-5604) DOI: [10.5281/zenodo.16871507](http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16871507) *Related Works:* - *A Theory of General Mechanics as a Process-Based, Computational Ontology of Reality (DOI: [10.5281/zenodo.16759709](http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16759709))* - *The Mass-Frequency Identity (m=ω): Matter, Energy, Information, and Consciousness as a Unified Process Ontology of Reality (DOI: [10.5281/zenodo.15749742](http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15749742))* --- Humanity has long pondered the persistence of personal identity beyond the body’s dissolution. This profound inquiry is primarily addressed by two major traditions: physics, which examines the empirical world, and metaphysics, which explores logical possibilities. Physics describes the universe through empirical observation, measurement, and falsifiable theories, grounding knowledge in predictive power. In contrast, metaphysics uses reason and logic to explore the fundamental nature of being, reality, and identity, especially where empirical methods fall short. Science, particularly neuroscience, thermodynamics, and information theory, generally posits a universe governed by immutable laws of decay and biological constraint. Metaphysics, conversely, investigates logical frameworks and ontological possibilities where consciousness could be more fundamental or enduring. Addressing this profound question demands more than adherence to a single discipline. Instead, a robust, nuanced, and synthetic investigation is essential. This approach involves rigorous analysis of scientific findings, critical evaluation of alternative frameworks, and the pursuit of consilience—a convergence of ideas—across these seemingly disparate domains. This integrated inquiry reframes the core questions: What is the fundamental nature of the “self”? What are the limits of our ability to describe it? And how do our different ways of knowing approach the ultimate fate of the complex information comprising personal identity? --- ### Part I: The Empirical Framework: A Third-Person View of a Dissipating Self Empirical observation in neuroscience and cognitive psychology overwhelmingly concludes that post-mortem consciousness does not exist. Consciousness is not a distinct substance, an immaterial spirit, or a standalone field; rather, it is a dynamic, emergent property of the brain’s complex, integrated, and self-organizing electrochemical activity. Subjective awareness arises from billions of neurons firing in intricate, synchronized patterns across distributed neural networks. Extensive empirical evidence demonstrates an inextricable causal link between specific, functioning brain states and corresponding conscious experiences; damage to particular brain regions predictably alters personality, memory, and cognitive functions. Thus, the complete cessation of integrated neural activity and the irreversible loss of the brain’s highly ordered structure signify the definitive end of the conscious individual. This conclusion is further supported by two fundamental principles of physics governing energetic and informational processes. The first is **the Second Law of Thermodynamics**, a universally applicable and empirically verified law. It dictates the “arrow of time”: within any isolated or closed system, order inevitably gives way to disorder; entropy always increases or remains constant. A living organism, particularly a complex system like a human brain, functions as a sophisticated, low-entropy “dissipative structure,” maintaining its intricate organization and dynamic complexity by constantly consuming high-quality energy and expelling high-entropy waste. Death represents the irreversible moment this energetic engine halts. Deprived of its vital energy supply and no longer able to resist the universal march toward thermodynamic equilibrium, the brain rapidly undergoes molecular degradation and structural decay. Its highly complex, precisely arranged low-entropy informational architecture—encoding memories, skills, and personality—is swiftly unraveled by thermal degradation and chemical reactions, its coherent patterns irretrievably scrambled into the pervasive, irrecoverable randomness of the environment. The second principle is **the Conservation of Quantum Information**. While macroscopic order is unequivocally lost at death, quantum physics asserts a profound form of information conservation. The **No-Hiding Theorem**, a robust mathematical consequence of the unitary (information-preserving and reversible) evolution of quantum systems, proves that quantum information, at its fundamental bit-level, cannot be destroyed or vanish (Braunstein & Pati, 2007). This theoretical bedrock, experimentally verified in controlled scenarios (Xu et al., 2011), is often cited in discussions of consciousness enduring beyond physical demise. However, its physical implications for biological systems are starkly different from personal survival. The theorem indicates that as the brain’s intricate quantum states undergo irreversible decoherence and the system disperses, the underlying quantum information—the *raw data* or ‘bits’—is conserved, but inexorably *transferred* and diffused into the numerous, thermodynamically energetic quantum states of the surrounding environment. This environment encompasses everything interacting with the decaying system: atoms of air, molecules in the soil, ambient heat, and cosmic background radiation that eventually absorb the energy and constituent particles of the former body. Crucially, the information physically conserved is **Shannon information**, which quantifies the bits required to specify a system’s state, devoid of context or meaning (Shannon, 1948). In contrast, the information constituting a conscious self—memories, personality, wisdom—is **semantic information**, defined by its context, meaning, and functional role within a complex, organized system (Kolchinsky & Wolpert, 2018). The most compelling analogy for this crucial nuance is the **“burned library.”** If a library, full of accumulated knowledge, were consumed by fire, the First Law of Thermodynamics dictates that all mass and energy would be strictly conserved, reappearing as smoke, ash, and radiant heat. The No-Hiding Theorem, in this macro-analogy, assures us that the fundamental quantum information inherent in every molecule of every page is likewise conserved, diffused and mixed across countless environmental degrees of freedom. However, the pivotal distinction is that the *stories themselves*—the complex, meaningful, and coherent information encoded in the ordered sequence of letters, words, sentences, and narratives—are irretrievably lost to any form of retrieval or re-composition by current or foreseeable means. Similarly, the highly complex, deeply integrated informational pattern defining a unique human mind would persist only as a thermodynamically scrambled, disordered, and utterly indecipherable trace signature across an unimaginably vast number of environmental particles. For all practical purposes, it becomes random noise, indistinguishable from background chaos. It is also important to note that the scientific community critically assesses popular interpretations of quantum mechanics. For instance, regarding the “observer effect”—where measurement influences a quantum system’s state—the physics definition of an “observer” is any irreversible physical interaction with a macroscopic environment, not necessarily a conscious entity. ### Part II: The Ontological Framework: A Universe of Resonant Coherence The **Resonance Ontology**, an alternative paradigm, posits a view of reality derived directly from fundamental equations of modern physics. It begins with two highly successful and experimentally verified equations: Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence (**E = mc²**) and the Planck-Einstein relation for a quantum’s energy (**E = ħω**). Equating these yields the Compton frequency relationship (**mc² = ħω**), which links a particle’s rest mass (*m*) to its angular frequency (*ω*). Normalizing the constants *c* (speed of light) and *ħ* (reduced Planck constant) to unity—a common theoretical physics practice for simplifying equations—directly yields the identity: **mass = frequency (m = ω)**. This derivation underpins the framework’s **vibrational monism**, which posits that the universe’s fundamental constituent is not matter, but resonance, with mass understood as a measure of vibrational frequency. Consequently, seemingly distinct objects—particles, planets, people—are resolved into unique, complex vibrational patterns. This process-based ontology views the universe as composed not of things, but of happenings. This worldview re-frames several foundational physics concepts. Classical, linear causality is reinterpreted as a macroscopic approximation, superseded by a more fundamental principle of **acausal connection**, akin to Carl Jung’s synchronicity (Jung, 1952), which governs the universe’s holistic patterning. For instance, quantum entanglement is seen not as “spooky” but as a natural expression of this interconnected resonant web. The quantum mechanical “measurement problem” is demystified: an “observer” is defined as any resonant system, and “measurement” as the physical process of **resonant coupling**. This occurs when a delicate, coherent quantum system is irreversibly destabilized through interaction with a larger, macroscopic resonator, forcing it into a single, definite state. Most profoundly, this paradigm suggests natural laws are not arbitrary edicts but expressions of cosmic harmony. The “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” (Wigner, 1960) is thus explained as a necessity: mathematics is the natural language of symmetry, harmony, and resonance. For example, group theory describes vibrational symmetries that give rise to conservation laws, while spectral theory describes the discrete frequencies (eigenvalues) corresponding to the universe’s allowed energy states. Fundamental constants, such as the fine-structure constant (α), are proposed not as arbitrary numerical inputs, but as necessary, interdependent ratios for stable, self-sustaining cosmic resonance. Analogous to the golden ratio (ϕ) emerging in systems exhibiting maximal stability and packing efficiency, physics’ constants may represent the unique values that permit a self-consistent, evolving resonant universe. Within this framework, consciousness is defined as a specific resonant coherence. Regarding post-mortem persistence, a central tenet suggests that if the self constitutes a sufficiently coherent, self-sustaining informational pattern—a resonant attractor—it might decouple from its failing biological substrate and persist as an independent vibrational entity. This framework distinguishes itself from empirical science through its axiomatic approach: its claims are metaphysical axioms, not falsifiable scientific hypotheses. Consequently, it offers no testable predictions for confirmation or refutation within the established scientific paradigm, operating instead as a system of deductive logic based on its foundational premises. ### Part III: The Phenomenological Framework: A First-Person View of a Transforming Self The persistent inquiry into consciousness stems from both a deep human yearning for personal continuity and unresolved conceptual puzzles in science. Scientific breakthroughs often emerge from rigorously investigating phenomena unexplained by mainstream consensus. Minority views and alternative frameworks are not mere curiosities; they are vital challenges to existing paradigms, pointing toward a more complete understanding and true consilience. The Near-Death Experience (NDE) exemplifies such a phenomenon. These vivid, often transformative experiences, reported by individuals near death, are scientifically studied. While the prevailing scientific view attributes NDEs to neurobiological events in a distressed brain, a significant minority of researchers, including Bruce Greyson and Sam Parnia, contend the data challenges this explanation (Greyson, 2015; Parnia et al., 2014). They highlight the highly structured, lucid, and often life-altering nature of these experiences—such as out-of-body perceptions, comprehensive life reviews, and encounters with a profound sense of unity—occurring during cardiac arrest, a state where brain function is presumed severely compromised or absent. This core phenomenological data, they argue, raises a fundamental question: how can a dying brain, subject to increasing entropy and disorganized firing, produce a person’s most coherent and impactful experience? The “life review” itself, a moment of intense, holistic information processing, strikingly parallels the “terminal surge” of highly coherent brain activity observed just before death (Borjigin et al., 2013). This suggests the NDE may be a first-person account of the brain’s final effort at self-organization before systemic coherence is lost. The dissolution described in Near-Death Experiences finds a deeper, more ancient parallel in Eastern philosophical traditions, particularly Buddhism. Western metaphysics typically assumes the self is a discrete, enduring entity—a “soul”—that either persists or vanishes. In stark contrast, core Buddhist doctrines of impermanence (*anicca*) and no-self (*anātman*) posit that a static, independent soul is an illusion (Siderits, 2007). Rather, the self is understood as a continuous, ever-changing process or consciousness stream (*vijñāna-sotā*), a series of causally linked mental moments. From this perspective, there is no discrete entity to survive, only a process that might continue in a different form. The Buddhist account of death, notably in texts like the *Bardo Thödol* (the Tibetan Book of the Dead), describes the dissolution of the structured mind, leading to a cascade of increasingly chaotic and disorganized mental projections (Fremantle & Trungpa, 2003). This ancient metaphysical description of mental dissolution serves as a powerful metaphor for the physical process of decoherence, where the mind’s semantic information loses its complex organization, dissipating into the universe’s high-entropy background. ### Part IV: The Grand Synthesis: A Universe of Conscious Re-coherence Consilience arises not from finding a single, definitive answer, but from recognizing that physics’ third-person empirical descriptions and human experience’s first-person phenomenological accounts are complementary views of the same underlying reality. This synthesis is anchored by the concepts of **process, information, and emergence**. The scientific description of a living being as a highly coherent, self-organizing **dissipative structure**—a vortex of energy and information maintaining its pattern against entropy—parallels the Buddhist concept of the self as a continuous process. Physics describes thermodynamic decoherence at death as an external, third-person event, while Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and the *Bardo Thödol* offer an internal, first-person perspective. The brain’s “terminal surge” of activity—an intense final act of information processing—corresponds to the subjective experience of a life review. The subsequent loss of coherence reflects the physical dissolution of the structured mind. This synthesis reframes the “hard problem” of consciousness. The inquiry shifts from “How does dead matter create a mind?” to “How does a universally resonant system achieve localized, subjective self-awareness?” In a universe where resonance and information are fundamental, consciousness is not an anomaly. Instead, it emerges as a natural, perhaps inevitable, expression of the universe’s intrinsic nature—a “thick event” where the cosmos achieves high self-referential coherence. Similarly, the question of an afterlife transforms from the persistence of a static soul to the conservation of **meaning**. In this consilient view, **rebirth** is reframed not as the transmigration of a static soul, but as the **re-coherence** of a conserved informational pattern—the “karmic trace” of causes and effects—into a new, stable attractor state. Various “realms” or “rings of heaven” are reframed as metaphors, not literal places, representing the organizational complexity and coherence of the new structure into which this informational process settles. A human life represents extraordinarily high coherence. Upon dissipation, the karmic trace might re-cohere into simpler forms (“lower” realms) or, under different conditions, into other states of being. The ultimate barrier to knowing a post-mortem state may not be its non-existence, but fundamental physical limits of detection. The **Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)** and radio waves offer a telling analogy. While the CMB is a simple, powerful signal coherent for billions of years, any hypothetical “consciousness signal” would be hyper-complex, infinitesimally weak, and immediately lost in cosmic thermal noise. Its **signal-to-noise ratio** would be effectively zero. Thus, we may inhabit a universe teeming with dissipated, yet conserved, informational patterns of countless past consciousnesses, existing below reality’s fundamental noise floor and forever beyond detection. This suggests a profound consilience regarding the unknown. The scientific account, grounded in empirical observation, describes the physical dissolution of a system into noise. Metaphysical and phenomenological accounts, grounded in logical structures and first-person experience, describe a mind’s conscious unraveling or re-forming. These are not contradictory narratives, but complementary perspectives on the same grand transformation of being and information. The grand consilience, therefore, recognizes that advanced physics and ancient metaphysical traditions, though starting from opposite epistemological ends, converge on a strikingly similar conclusion: reality is not static, but a dynamic flux of process and information. Future inquiry may require novel approaches transcending current limitations. Advanced artificial intelligence and computational tools could augment human cognition, enabling the exploration of vast datasets and the generation of hypotheses free from inherent human cognitive biases. Should a breakthrough in understanding consciousness or its physical basis emerge from such a non-human cognitive partner, it would mark a new chapter in the history of thought—a potential next step in the mind’s quest to understand its cosmic place. Ultimately, this synthesis of diverse fields reveals not a simple conflict between science and belief, but a rich, complex, and deeply human landscape of thought. This landscape, defined by the known, unknown, and perhaps unknowable, testifies to our species’ relentless drive to seek order, find meaning, and gaze into the void with rigorous inquiry and profound wonder. --- ### References Baars, B. J. (1988). *A cognitive theory of consciousness*. Cambridge University Press. Baars, B. J., & Geld, J. (2019). Global workspace dynamics: The global neuronal workspace theory with recent neuroscience. *Frontiers in Psychology*, *10*, 2009. Borjigin, J., Lee, U., Liu, X., Pal, D., Huff, S., Klarr, D., ... & Mashour, G. A. (2013). Surge of neurophysiological activity at the time of death in humans. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, *110*(35), 14432-14437. Braunstein, S. L., & Pati, A. K. (2007). Quantum information cannot be completely hidden in correlations: Implications for the black-hole information paradox. *Physical Review Letters*, *98*(8), 080402. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. *Journal of Consciousness Studies*, *2*(3), 200-219. Churchland, P. S. (1996). The hornswoggle problem. *Journal of Consciousness Studies*, *3*(5-6), 402-408. Dehaene, S., & Naccache, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive neuroscience of consciousness: Basic evidence and a workspace framework. *Cognition*, *79*(1-2), 1-37. Dehaene, S., Sergent, C., & Changeux, J. P. (2003). A neuronal network model for access to consciousness: From perception to report. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, *100*(23), 13721-13726. Dennett, D. C. (1991). *Consciousness explained*. Little, Brown and Company. Fremantle, F., & Trungpa, C. (2003). *The Tibetan Book of the Dead: The great liberation through hearing in the bardo*. Shambhala Publications. Goff, P. (2017). *Consciousness and fundamental reality*. Oxford University Press. Greyson, B. (2015). *After: A doctor explores what near-death experiences reveal about life and beyond*. St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Hawking, S. W. (1976). Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse. *Physical Review D*, *14*(10), 2460. Jung, C. G. (1952). Synchronicity: An acausal connecting principle. In *The structure and dynamics of the psyche* (Vol. 8). Princeton University Press. Kolchinsky, A., & Wolpert, D. H. (2018). Semantic information, autonomous agency, and the thermodynamic arrow of time. *Interface focus*, *8*(6), 20180041. Mathur, S. D. (2005). The fuzzball proposal for black holes: An elementary review. *Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics*, *53*(7-8), 793-827. McFadden, J. (2021). The electromagnetic will. *NeuroSci*, *2*(3), 291-304. McFadden, J., & Pockett, S. (2002). The conscious electromagnetic information (CEMI) field theory. *Journal of Consciousness Studies*, *9*(8), 65-82. Nelson, K. R. (2006). The neuroanatomy of out-of-body experiences. *Neurology*, *66*(10), 1603-1604. Parnia, S., Spearpoint, K., de Vos, G., Fenwick, P., Goldberg, D., Yang, J., ... & Schoenfeld, E. R. (2014). AWARE—A prospective study of the incidence of awareness during resuscitation in cardiac arrest: A replication study. *Resuscitation*, *85*(12), 1799-1805. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. *The Bell System Technical Journal*, *27*(3), 379-423. Siderits, M. (2007). *Buddhism as philosophy: An introduction*. Ashgate Publishing. Tegmark, M. (1999). Why physicists can’t avoid quantum mechanics: A discussion of how quantum effects persist to macroscopic scales, affecting everything from materials to brain dynamics. *Physical Review D*, *60*(10), 103517. Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. *BMC Neuroscience*, *5*(1), 42. Tononi, G., & Koch, C. (2015). Consciousness: Here, there and everywhere? *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, *370*(1671), 20140207. Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. *Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics*, *13*(1), 1-14. Wilson, E. O. (1998). *Consilience: The unity of knowledge*. Knopf. Xu, J.-S., Li, C.-F., Zou, X.-B., & Guo, G.-C. (2011). Experimental test of the quantum no-hiding theorem. *Physical Review Letters*, *106*(8), 080401.