A Quantum Realism Response to PhD Physicist Bartosz Milewski’s Physics Forecast
Physics today is not starved for data, it is starved for courage. While theorists chase particles, dimensions, and speculative math, the most important variable in the equation of reality remains deliberately ignored: the conscious observer. In a system driven by grants, publications, and academic conformity, foundational change is not rewarded, it is punished. PhD Physicist Bartosz Milewski’s vision for the future of physics reflects this culture: ambitious, technical, and ultimately confined to the materialist assumptions that Quantum Realism challenges at the root. This blog is not just a response to his predictions. It is a call to reset the frame entirely. To stop treating the universe as a machine of matter and instead recognize it as a recursive field of information, observed into form by consciousness itself.
Quantum Realism (QR) reframes the question of reality entirely. QR suggests we’ve been asking the wrong questions. It proposes that space, time, and matter are not fundamental entities but outputs of a non-physical quantum processing network. Consciousness is not emergent, it’s primary. From this foundation, we re-examine and directly respond to every point raised in Milewski’s post.
Quora Question:
What major advances in theoretical physics will the 21st century see?
Response From Physicist:
Bartosz Milewski · Physicist (PhD in quantum field theory), Mathematician, Programmer
I can only speculate on what advances we would hope to see in the 21st century.
Let me start with the obvious:
1. Find out if supersymmetry is real. This may be right around the corner, if the LHC discovers a supersymmetric partner to any of the known particles. Possibly related: Find out what dark matter is made of.
2. Figure out why we have so many elementary particles. The Standard Model looks more like a periodic table of particles, waiting for a theory that would explain the variety and the patterns we see there. We need the Grand Unification.
3. Study additional dimensions, if they exist.
4. Find out if string theory (M-theory) is real.
5. Unify gravity with the rest of particle physics. Extend physics beyond the black-hole horizon.
It’s possible that we’ll be able to solve these puzzles within the framework of relativistic quantum theory and Riemannian geometry, using existing mathematical tools — maybe stretching them a little further. But it’s also possible that we’ll have to revolutionize the foundations of theoretical physics and maybe even mathematics.
Here are some thoughts:
– Our mathematical and computational tools drastically limit our understanding of the Universe. We use perturbation theory wherever it’s applicable; and then some (renormalization). Are virtual particles “real” or an artifact of perturbation theory? Do quarks make sense when perturbation theory breaks down in the strong coupling regime?
– Symmetries play a very important role in physics, but we don’t understand their origin. We use mathematical models to describe reality. Symmetry means, roughly, that different sets of numbers describe the same reality. Or that we use too many variables, and some of them are redundant. We have gauge-invariant theories (locally symmetric theories), but we have to fix the gauge in order to do calculations. A gauge-invariant photon (the four-potential) has longitudinal and time-like components that are not physical.
– We don’t really understand the role of the observer. Quantum theory is based on the duality between the observed and the observer. The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is unsatisfactory. The observer is described by classical physics and there is a discontinuity between quantum and classical description.
The Many Universe interpretation doesn’t explain probabilities. If all outcomes are realized, where do probabilities come from?
We cannot apply quantum theory of the whole Universe because we don’t have an external observer who could measure probabilities of various outcomes.
The observer problem and the anthropic principle are fundamental to our understanding of the Universe. Is the Universe knowable at all?
– We have only now started to digest the products of the computer revolution. Computers will further change not only what we can calculate. They will influence the very foundations of mathematics and physics. So far we’ve been fascinated with bits and bytes, with numbers. But the theory of computation goes beyond numbers. Type theory, category theory, constructive logic, and the recent developments in homotopy type theory are all influenced by computers. The old wisdom was that breakthroughs in physics lead to developments in mathematics and, more recently, to the development of computer technology. In the 21st century we will see the reversal of this flow: from computers to mathematics and then to physics.
Quantum Realism Response:
These are good questions. Let’s engage each of Bartosz Milewski’s points through the lens of Quantum Realism (QR). QR challenges the fundamental assumptions of physical realism and reframes core questions in physics via a non-physical, quantum-informational foundation.
Part I: Reframing Milewski’s “Obvious” Advances
1. Supersymmetry & Dark Matter
Milewski begins with supersymmetry, hoping the LHC might uncover partner particles, and links it to the mystery of dark matter.
Quantum Realism responds bluntly: supersymmetry is a solution to a problem that vanishes once you abandon the assumption that matter is fundamental. QR holds that all matter is a glitch in light, a local distortion in quantum processing. Supersymmetric particles are unnecessary because the underlying structure isn’t particle-based.
Dark matter, likewise, may never be “found” because it isn’t matter at all. In QR, it likely represents non-collapsing quantum states, virtual information that shapes gravitational behavior without ever localizing into observable form.
Stop asking what dark matter is made of. Ask why you’re assuming it’s “made” at all.
2. The Particle Zoo and Grand Unification
Why so many elementary particles? The Standard Model looks like a periodic table awaiting deeper explanation.
Quantum Realism’s answer is radical: there is no “zoo.” There is only light, and the variations we call particles are processing configurations of that single quantum field. There is no need for a Grand Unification of forces as if they’re distinct, they are emergent expressions of a single informational substrate, rendered different only by how they’re observed.
3. Extra Dimensions
String theory predicts 10, 11, or more dimensions, folded, hidden, or curled up.
QR’s response: dimensions are not “places.” They are recursive stages of quantum information flow, not geometric additions. Higher dimensions in QR are levels of virtuality, layers of self-referential processing that project lower ones. The 3D space we experience is just one level in this cascade.
4. String Theory (M-Theory)
Milewski wonders if string theory is real.
Quantum Realism’s position: strings are elegant metaphors for a flawed ontology. They suggest vibration, resonance, and pattern, but reify them into things. QR keeps the resonance and ditches the “thing.” What vibrates is not a string in space, but quantum potential across a non-physical field. That’s not metaphysics. That’s the architecture of a virtual universe projected by a quantum field.
5. Gravity and Black Holes
The unification of gravity with quantum mechanics has eluded physicists for a century.
Quantum Realism unifies them by stepping behind both. In QR, gravity is not a force, it’s a bandwidth limitation. A black hole is not a mysterious singularity, it’s a node overload in the quantum field network. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are in conflict because they are both approximations of a quantum computational substrate.
Part II: The Questions Physics Can’t Answer—Because It Won’t Ask Them Honestly
While Milewski opens with predictions, his second half reveals an awareness: that the foundations of physics are broken. But even as he names the cracks, virtual particles, gauge symmetries, the observer problem, his framing remains trapped in the same assumptions causing the failure.
Quantum Realism doesn’t just name the cracks, it digs to the root. Let’s address each of these foundational concerns directly.
1. “Are virtual particles real?”
They’re not fake, but they’re not particles either.
In QR, “virtual particles” are exactly what they sound like: virtual events, temporary excitations in a quantum network that never collapse into persistent reality unless observed. They are not “almost-real things.” They are processing ripples, resolved or discarded by the system depending on observer entanglement. That’s not a bug of perturbation theory, it’s a feature of a virtual reality.
2. “Do quarks make sense when perturbation theory breaks down?”
No, and they were never meant to.
QR doesn’t treat quarks as things. It treats them as fragments of processing states, existing only within tightly bound systems like protons and neutrons. Once you abandon the need to make every equation produce a particle, quarks revert to what they always were: constructs within a confined quantum potential. Their behavior breaks perturbation theory because they are not entities in space, they are patterns in a quantum topology.
3. “We don’t understand where symmetries come from.”
Because we’re looking in the wrong place.
QR says: symmetry is a side effect of code, not geometry. Gauge invariance isn’t about spatial redundancy, it’s about informational consistency across network nodes. We don’t “fix the gauge” because the math is ambiguous, we do it because our models are compensating for the fact that space is virtual. The problem isn’t with the symmetry. It’s with the assumption that symmetry exists in a physical vacuum.
4. “We don’t understand the observer.”
That’s because we’ve tried to eliminate it.
Physics still splits reality into two worlds: quantum and classical. The observer is treated as classical, while the observed is quantum. This is incoherent. QR collapses that duality: everything is quantum, including the observer. What we call “observation” is a recursive interaction between a conscious field and a virtual process. There is no boundary. The observer is the system.
5. “The Many Worlds interpretation doesn’t explain probabilities.”
Of course not, because it removes the one thing that selects outcomes: the observer, consciousness.
Many Worlds says all outcomes exist. But QR says: potential is not actuality. Consciousness collapses potential into experience, not by magic, but by selective coherence. There is no mystery to probability when you understand it as a quantum match function between an observer’s bandwidth and the available state space.
6. “Quantum theory can’t apply to the whole universe—there’s no external observer.”
That’s only true if you insist the observer must be outside the system.
But QR flips the problem: consciousness is not external, it’s recursive. The universe is not being watched from the outside. It is being generated from within, by a self-aware field that observes itself, consciousness. That’s what the core QR equation means: C0 = f(C0)
The observer problem disappears when you accept the observer as the origin of the process, not its byproduct.
7. “Computers will reshape math and physics.”
Yes, but not by crunching more numbers.
They will do so by changing our conception of what reality is. The future of physics lies in information theory, topological recursion, quantum logic, network coherence, and self-similar (fractal) processing patterns. QR is already there. It doesn’t treat the universe as a thing, it treats it as a system, in some cases a quantum communication system. And consciousness is the first node in that system, not the final emergent phenomenon.
This isn’t philosophy.
Modern physics is haunted by unresolved questions because it refuses to consider the obvious: consciousness is not an add-on. It is the root-level process driving observation, collapse, and structure.
Until we stop pretending the observer is irrelevant, we’ll keep generating theories that look brilliant on paper, and fail to explain the world.
III. Dogma, Incentives, and the Fear of Consciousness
Despite brilliant minds and massive investments, theoretical physics has stalled. The deeper issue isn’t a lack of data, it’s a failure of imagination, entrenched by dogma, systemic incentives, and philosophical fear.
So why, after a century of breakthroughs, has physics stopped moving forward?
1. The Incentive System: Publish or Perish, Grant or Die
Modern academic physics is driven by the economics of visibility, not truth. Researchers need to publish continually to maintain funding, prestige, and institutional survival. This means:
- Chasing incremental or sensational results, not foundational questions.
- Producing high-math, low-impact models that no one will test.
- Recycling variations on accepted paradigms (SUSY, string theory), because novel frameworks like Quantum Realism threaten career safety.
Ideas that question the foundations, especially those that touch on consciousness, non-locality, or virtualism, are labeled speculative or philosophical, not because they’re unscientific, but because they don’t fit the institutional model of reproducible, materialist outputs.
2. Dogma in Disguise: Physicalism as a Religion
Despite its claims to rationality, physics today operates under a rigid dogma: physicalism, the belief that everything real must be measurable, spatial, and reducible to material interaction.
This dogma persists despite physics’ own contradictions:
- Quantum mechanics shows particles are not real until observed.
- Space and time are not fixed backdrops, but dynamic emergent phenomena.
- Matter itself behaves like information, not substance.
And yet, most physicists cling to material causes. Why?
Because abandoning physicalism means abandoning:
- The illusion of objectivity without observers.
- The comfort of a universe without intrinsic meaning.
- The institutional machinery built on equations without awareness.
3. Consciousness Is the Third Rail: It Sounds Like “God”
Let’s be honest, consciousness terrifies physics. Why?
Because if the observer is fundamental, not emergent, then:
- The universe is not self-contained.
- There’s a non-physical source behind spacetime.
- The act of observation is not passive, but creative.
And that opens the door, dangerously, for many scientists, to spirituality.
Acknowledging consciousness as primal implies there’s an organizing principle that exists outside physical space. Some hear this and fear “God” is creeping into physics. But Quantum Realism is not theology, it’s logic. It’s the only framework that:
- Solves the observer problem without dualism.
- Unifies quantum and relativistic behavior via informational recursion.
- Restores coherence to a field fractured by contradiction.
If that feels spiritual, it’s because reality itself is deeper than we imagined.
4. What Must Change
To move forward, physics must undergo not just a technical revision, but a paradigm shift:
- From matter to quantum information.
- From observation as external to observation as reality-forming.
- From objectivity to recursive coherence within a conscious framework.
This is not mysticism. It is the next logical step beyond Copenhagen, Everett, and Einstein. The tools are already here, information theory, quantum networks, coherence theory, recursion, and field processing.
What’s missing is the courage to break the spell of physicalism and confront the one variable no equation yet explains: the observer who chooses.
Final Reflection
Physics is stuck not because we lack the equations, but because we refuse to follow them to their conclusion. The wave function collapses. Probability resolves. Something observes.
Quantum Realism dares to say what physics has long whispered and never admitted:
That the foundation of the universe is not particles or fields, but consciousness observing itself into form.
Until we face that, we’ll keep inventing particles, patching theories, and circling a truth we already know, but are too afraid to name.
Summary of QR Counterposition:
| Milewski Point | QR Position |
|---|---|
| Supersymmetry | Unnecessary – matter is light in error. |
| Particle Zoo | Explained by quantum processing glitches. |
| Extra Dimensions | Recursive quantum processing layers. |
| String Theory | Metaphorically useful but physically misleading. |
| Gravity | A bandwidth effect, not a field. |
| Symmetry Origins | Emergent from invariant quantum code. |
| Observer Problem | Solved via consciousness as quantum process. |
| Many Worlds | Lacks mechanism; QR provides observer-based collapse. |
| Role of Computation | QR grounds physics in computation. |
Moving Forward
Bartosz Milewski’s predictions are rooted in physical realism. QR invites us to take a different path, one where the observer is not an afterthought, but the source. In this model, the fundamental question of physics shifts from “What is the universe made of?” to:
“What is the process by which consciousness observes itself into being?“
The frontier of physics isn’t more particles or bigger colliders, it’s a deeper honesty about what the equations already imply. Observation collapses the wave function. Space and time are not givens, but outputs. And the physical world, far from being absolute, behaves like a virtual interface generated by a deeper, conscious substrate. Physics remains stuck because admitting this would mean dethroning materialism, disrupting institutions, and reintroducing meaning where science has trained itself to find none. But Quantum Realism makes a simple demand: follow the logic. Consciousness isn’t a side effect. It’s the system. And until physics accepts that, it will remain a science of surfaces, ignoring the very observer that gives those surfaces form.
Bantam Joe 
Leave a comment