ASU’s Beyond Center is Bridging the Gap Between Quantum Mechanics and Human Philosophy

Inside one small academic center, conversations float far beyond the Sonoran horizon, while the beige stone buildings of Arizona State University’s Tempe campus glow subtly in the desert sun. Philosophers and physicists sit side by side in seminar rooms with half-erased diagrams of spacetime curves and chalkboards covered in layers of equations, asking questions that seem both archaic and oddly urgent. The Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science interprets the universe rather than merely measuring it.

This place seems to exist a little outside of the typical academic rhythms. Here, disciplinary turf wars, grants, and publication counts don’t feel as important. Rather, debates veer from mathematical symmetry to whether human consciousness can actually understand reality, from quantum uncertainty to the origin of life.

Known for his cosmic-scale thinking, Paul Davies, the center’s director and a theoretical physicist, has crafted the program around issues that most research institutions covertly shun. What is the origin of the laws of physics? Why is nature so well described by mathematics? How did beings with the ability to comprehend a universe dominated by particles and forces come into being? Fast funding cycles are not relevant to these questions.

A small group of graduate students were discussing the nature of time on a recent afternoon as they leaned forward in metal chairs. Time, it was argued, is emergent, a characteristic of complex systems rather than an essential component of reality. Another claimed that the definition of time is a matter on which physics itself cannot agree, citing inconsistencies between relativity and quantum theory. Palm trees flickered in the heat shimmer outside the window, unconcerned by the argument.

One of the center’s physics professors, Maulik Parikh, frequently reminds students that science used to be known as natural philosophy. He contends that the division between philosophy and physics is both intellectually inconvenient and relatively recent. Even within the most exact equations, there are still questions about space, time, and causality.

It’s remarkable how frequently physicists use philosophical terminology to explain quantum mechanics. In addition to mathematical accuracy, terms like observer, uncertainty, and reality have interpretive significance. The physical world is described by two frameworks that work brilliantly but refuse to combine because of the well-known incompatibility between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity.

According to some scholars studying “twin physics” or complementary frameworks, reality might need two descriptions, with time and space being viewed as separate but related properties connected by more complex mathematical structures. According to this way of thinking, observable phenomena are produced by the interaction of fundamental units of potential energy, suggesting a link between the quantum and cosmic scales. Even the idea that light moves at a constant speed starts to seem less like a presumption and more like a thread that ties everything together.

Such concepts may seem abstract at first, but they aren’t. GPS satellites are controlled by the speed of light. Semiconductor chips are made possible by quantum effects. The philosophical underpinnings of physics subtly influence commonplace technology.

University philosopher Ben Phillips contends that the meaning of reality cannot be explained by equations alone. Philosophy investigates what it means and what constitutes an explanation in the first place, while physics explains what occurs. Scientific knowledge runs the risk of becoming conceptually superficial but technically accurate without that second layer.

Additionally, a noticeable change is taking place. Beyond cosmology and quantum theory, Davies has started to broaden the center’s focus to include artificial intelligence, models of societal collapse, and the long-term prospects of humanity. This expanding perspective is reflected in Peter Turchin’s forthcoming annual lecture on social complexity.

It’s still unclear if this expansion represents a shift in scientific thinking or just an acknowledgment of long-held principles, such as the fact that knowledge of the cosmos inevitably leads to knowledge of ourselves.

The intersection of physics, biology, and computation has been dubbed the “third frontier” of science in recent years: complexity. The Beyond Center, which studies how complexity gives rise to life, intelligence, and culture, and how simple rules create complex systems, appears to naturally inhabit that frontier.

One might hear tidbits of discussion about entropy and free will, extraterrestrial life, and the mathematics of consciousness as they pass the lecture hall after an evening discussion. Unwilling to let the conversation end, students stay longer than anticipated.

It’s difficult to overlook the subdued ambition present here. The older goal of comprehending life itself, rather than the clamorous goal of technological disruption.

The center urges academics to follow science where it leads and refrain from bending evidence to support their opinions. That may seem apparent, but history indicates that people frequently act in the opposite way.

As of right now, the Beyond Center continues to be a unique academic venue open to broad concepts without guaranteeing quick fixes. There will be theories that don’t work. Some conversations will veer into conjecture. I think that’s the point.

As this is happening, it seems as though the most profound scientific inquiries are returning to philosophy—not because science is waning, but rather because it is approaching its conceptual limits. Furthermore, equations by themselves might not be sufficient at those edges.