2R is allegedly searching for a new paradigm for the Western world. Perhaps we should therefore start with a survey of the problem space that defines the old one. I submit that we should be able to recognise the new paradigm by its enormous explanatory power with respect to solving these problems. It needs to be both simple and revolutionary - to be based on a “Copernican-level conceptual shift”: something as simple as heliocentrism or Kant’s “Copernican Revolution in Philosophy” (replace mind and matter with phenomena and noumena), but have sufficient explanatory power to coherently resolve all of these problems. Not 30 different solutions but one clean, simple, elegant solution to all thirty problems.
If such a new model of reality were to be presented, would you take it seriously? Or would you ignore it on the grounds that it challenges your own belief system as well as everybody-else’s?
Cosmology
To be blunt, ΛCDM is now heading towards the state that Ptolemaic geocentrism had degenerated into by the 16th century. It consists of an ever-expanding conglomeration of ad-hoc fixes, most of which introduce as many problems as they solve. The following list may seem sprawling, but that is indicative of the intractability of the underlying situation. These problems cannot be cleanly classified because cosmology itself has no unified theory that can make sense of them. Instead, each anomaly is patched in isolation, creating an overall model that is riddled with contradictions.
- How can something come from nothing?
There are countless ways of restating this question. Why does anything exist? Why isn’t there just nothing? What caused the Big Bang? Etc… This is a problem faced by any cosmology, but that doesn’t make it any less relevant to ΛCDM. Some sort of answer is required.
- The Constants Fine-Tuning Problem
The fundamental constants of nature appear to be exquisitely calibrated to allow for the existence of life. Why does the universe appear to be precisely set up to make life possible?
- The Low-Entropy Initial Condition
The universe began in an extraordinarily smooth, low-entropy (highly ordered) state, as shown by the near-uniform cosmic microwave background (CMB). Physics does not demand or explain such fine-tuning.
- Inflation-related fine-tuning problems
To address problem (3) above and also problem (6) below, cosmologists proposed “inflation” – a fleeting period of superluminal expansion that smoothed the early cosmos. Inflation ends when its driving potential energy decays into matter and radiation, a process called reheating. For today’s universe to emerge, this reheating must occur with extreme precision in both timing and efficiency, yet no known mechanism explains this. Inflation therefore fails to avoid fine-tuning, because it actually requires more fine-tuning than it gets rid of.
- Other fine-tuning problems
Countless additional fine-tuning issues exist. The universe shows an unusually favourable balance of elemental abundances for stable stars and biochemistry. Galaxies and stars also formed at just the right time – early enough for life to evolve, but not so early as to disrupt cosmic smoothness. Further tunings include the matter–radiation equality and primordial perturbation amplitude problems.
- The Missing Monopoles
Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) of particle physics predict the abundant production of magnetic monopoles – massive, stable particles carrying a net magnetic charge – during symmetry-breaking transitions in the early universe. The problem is that no magnetic monopoles have ever been observed. Inflation solves it by “diluting” them with empty space.
- The Baryon Asymmetry Problem
A foundational assumption of particle physics and cosmology is that the laws of nature are nearly symmetric between matter and antimatter. In the earliest moments after the Big Bang, the universe should have produced equal quantities of baryons (matter) and antibaryons (antimatter) through high-energy particle interactions. What we actually observe is a universe composed almost entirely of matter.
- The Hubble Tension
This is a large and persistent discrepancy between two different (early universe vs recent) measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion.
- The S8 Tension
This is a persistent mismatch between the level of matter clumpiness predicted by ΛCDM for the early universe and what we actually observe in the late universe. CMB measurements fix a precise value for how strongly structures should have grown, but weak lensing, galaxy clustering, and cluster counts all find a smoother cosmos with a significantly lower S8. The gap has widened as data improved, creating a second major early-versus-late tension that the standard model cannot resolve.
- “Dark Energy”
Dark energy was invented to account for a surprising set of astronomical observations that contradicted long-standing expectations. A repulsive force appears to be pushing the universe apart at an accelerating rate. Today, Dark Energy accounts for roughly 70% of the total energy density in standard ΛCDM, but its origin, nature, and ontological status are unknown.
- The Cosmological Constant Problem
Dubbed “worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics”, the cosmological constant problem is a staggering mismatch between theoretical prediction of the repulsive force described above and the observational measurement of that force. The mismatch is between 60 and 120 orders of magnitude.
- “Dark Matter”
Dark Matter has never been directly detected, but regardless of that it is now thought to comprise approximately 85% of the matter content of the universe. The hypothesis of Dark Matter emerged as a unifying explanation for multiple independent observational anomalies across different astrophysical and cosmological scales. In each case, visible (baryonic) matter alone proved insufficient to account for the observed gravitational effects. After decades of experiments, we still have no clear idea what it is or where it came from.
- The Quantum Gravity problem
A central goal of theoretical physics for nearly a century has been the unification of quantum mechanics and General Relativity, but the two most successful theoretical frameworks remain conceptually incompatible.
- The Early Galaxy Formation Problem
The James Webb Space Telescope has detected massive, metal-rich, well-formed galaxies at redshifts greater than 13 – meaning they already existed 325 million years after the Big Bang. The abundance, size, composition and apparent maturity of these early galaxies outpace the predictions of hierarchical structure formation, challenging both the timeline and mechanisms of ΛCDM.
- The Fermi Paradox
Our theories suggest life should be abundant in the cosmos, but after over a century of intense searching, we have found no sign of it. Where is everybody?
- The Black Hole Information Paradox
The black hole information problem asks whether information that falls into a black hole is lost when the black hole evaporates via Hawking radiation. Modern approaches suggest that unitarity is preserved, but only by abandoning naïve locality, independent interior–exterior descriptions, or observer-independent global states. This raises a deeper conceptual question: what counts as information, where does it reside, and when does it become physically real?
- The Arrow of Time and the Problem of Now
Human experience and natural processes clearly distinguish past from future, yet the fundamental laws of physics are time-symmetric, treating both directions equally. Why, then, do we perceive a one-way arrow of time? A related puzzle concerns the present moment: in relativity, time is just another dimension, and all events coexist in a four-dimensional block universe with no privileged “now.” Yet the present is all we ever experience.
- The Memory Stabilisation Problem
Though rarely noted, this issue is fundamental. Memory underpins continuity, identity, and meaning, seeming to refer to fixed past events encoded as stable traces in the brain. Yet in a quantum universe where events become definite only upon observation, it remains unclear how the apparent solidity of the past, and our reliable access to it, arises.
Quantum mechanics
Not the science of quantum mechanics. The problem here is the metaphysical interpretation. As things stand there are at least 12 major interpretations, each of which has something different to say about the Measurement Problem. None are integrated with cosmology.
- The Measurement Problem
How does the range possible outcomes predicted by the laws of QM become a single observed outcome? Why can’t we agree on an answer to this question?
- The Preferred Basis Problem
In QM the state of a system can be mathematically expressed in many different “bases” (ways of describing the states), each providing a valid description of the system’s properties. However, in actual observations, we only ever perceive outcomes corresponding to certain specific bases. What determines the “preferred basis”?
- The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics
Why should mathematics, if it is a product of human cognition, so precisely capture the fundamental workings of nature?
Consciousness
We’ve got no “official” idea what consciousness is or does, or how or why it evolved. Four centuries after Galileo and Descartes separated reality into mind and matter, and declared matter to be measurable and mind to be not, we are no closer to being able to scientifically measure a mind. Meanwhile, any attempt to connect the problems in cognitive science to the problems in either cosmology or quantum mechanics is met with fierce resistance.
- The Hard Problem of Consciousness
The “Hard Problem of Consciousness,” a term introduced by philosopher David Chalmers, refers to the extreme difficulty of explaining how and why physical processes in the brain could possibly give rise to something as utterly different to brain activity as subjective experience.
- The Even Harder Problem of Consciousness
Even if we accept physicalism cannot account for consciousness, there is no agreement about how to proceed from there. Eliminativists and illusionists claim consciousness doesn’t exist, idealists claim consciousness is everything, and panpsychists claim everything is conscious. These metaphysical theories contradict each other, and none of them offers an unproblematic account of the relationship between brains and minds (hence, as with many other items on this list, no consensus can be assembled).
- The General Anaesthetic Mechanism Problem
Despite a century of use, the mechanism by which anaesthetics cause loss of consciousness remains unknown. Chemically diverse agents, from inert gases like xenon to complex molecules such as propofol or ketamine, all produce the same effect. What shared feature of brain function do they target, and why does consciousness switch off and on so abruptly rather than gradually fading?
- The Binding Problem
How does the brain integrate information from separate neural processes into a unified, coherent experience?
- The Frame Problem
The Frame Problem concerns how a cognitive system – artificial or biological – determines what matters when something in the world changes. How can an intelligent agent efficiently update its knowledge or make decisions without needing to consider every possible consequence of an action or event? Even powerful computers struggle with this, but humans and other animals handle such situations effortlessly. What is the explanation for this difference?
- The Evolution of Consciousness
If we can’t even agree that consciousness exists, and have no agreed scientific theory what it does, what hope do we have of explaining how, why or when it evolved? This problem isn’t just empirical – something is conceptually amiss.
- The cause of the Cambrian Explosion
Just short of 540 million years ago, within a relatively short time, virtually all major animal phyla appeared. The underlying causes of this pivotal episode in the history of life on Earth remain a subject of intense debate and unresolved mystery (though I have obviously placed this problem in this category for a reason).
- The Problem of Free Will
The problem of free will is the apparent conflict between human agency and the causal structure of the universe. How can we be genuinely free agents if our actions are the outcome of deterministic/random processes? Why are we subjectively so convinced we have free will if it is conceptually impossible for this to be the case?
- The Problem of Meaning and Value
Why do we experience the world as meaningful? Why does reason track truth, and why does truth matter? If value and meaning are real – if they exist – then they must be part of the natural order, not afterthoughts or illusions. Yet the current scientific picture offers no place for such things.
[this list is a quote taken from my recently published book, but I think we need to look at the problems before I provide links to the solution.]