I think the answer is already there, and it has not been noticed because the scientific community is blinded by materialistic groupthink. The problem is that the answer isn’t really scientific at all – it is conceptual/logical.
I think it is interesting you use the word “believe”. However believing something, knowing something, proving something and achieving something are all distinctly different activities of increasing difficulty.
Again, the problem is that too many people in the scientific community have failed to understand the proper boundary between physics and philosophy. They are searching for a materialistic solution to a problem which does not have one, because materialism itself is the problem. This problem is logical – exactly the sort of problem that scientists are usually good at spotting – which just adds to the groupthink (“How could all these rational people have missed a logical problem!?)”.
There is a pathological refusal to accept that there could be some sort of important connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. This is even though the person who initially proposed that connection was none other than John von Neumann – the most influential scientist/mathematician of the 20th century, and quite possibly the smartest human who ever lived. The amount of times I’ve explained this to people only to be met by the response “I don’t care if von Neumann was the smartest human ever to have lived, THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN QUANTUM MECHANICS AND CONSCIOUSNESS!” Never does it cross their minds that maybe he understood something they do not. And the reason is that his proposal is not consistent with materialism.
Here is the connection:
The hard problem of consciousness (see The Hard Problem of Consciousness and 2R - General - Second Renaissance Forum for a full description):
The HP is the problem of explaining how consciousness (the entire subjective realm) can exist if reality is purely made of material entities. Brains are clearly closely correlated with minds, and it looks very likely that they are necessary for minds (that there can be no minds without brains). But brain processes aren’t enough on their own, and this is a conceptual rather than an empirical problem. The hard problem is “hard” (ie impossible) because there isn’t enough conceptual space in the materialistic view of reality to accommodate a subjective realm.
It is often presented as a choice between materialism and dualism, but what is missing does not seem to be “mind stuff”. Mind doesn’t seem to be “stuff” at all. All of the complexity of a mind may well be correlated to neural complexity. What is missing is an internal viewpoint – an observer. And this observer doesn’t just seem to be passive either. It feels like we have free will – as if the observer is somehow “driving” our bodies. So what is missing is an observer which also participates.
The measurement problem in quantum theory:
The MP is the problem of explaining how the evolving wave function (the expanding set of different possible states of a quantum system prior to observation/measurement) is “collapsed” into the single state which is observed/measured. The scientific part of quantum theory does not specify what “observer” or “measurement” means, which is why there are multiple metaphysical interpretations. In the Many Worlds Interpretation the need for observation/measurement is avoided by claiming all outcomes occur in diverging timelines. The other interpretations offer other explanations of what “observation” or “measurement” must be understood to mean with respect to the nature of reality. These include Von Neumann / Wigner / Stapp interpretation which explicitly states that the wave function is collapsed by an interaction with a non-physical consciousness or observer. And this observer doesn’t just seem to be passive either – the act of observation has an effect on thing which is being observed. So what is missing is an observer which also participates.
Once this connection is made, other parts of the puzzle can be moved into place. But to make it, you have to be prepared to accept that materialism is incoherent – that it must be ruled out on logical grounds. In my experience, very few materialists are capable of accepting this. Instead, they defend materialism with all the irrationalism of the quasi-religious belief it actually is.
This is why metaphysical materialism is one of the things that must not be smuggled into the new paradigm. Cannot be. 2R won’t work unless it rejected. 2R needs to involve radical new thinking, and this is one of the places where the rubber actually needs to meet the road.
they both challenge the belief in certainty, absolutism and objectivity.
Yes, but in both cases the devil is in the details. Schrodinger’s cat could be dead, alive or maybe even both, but we can say with absolute certainty that it is not a dog.