That's an interesting, fundamental question, primarily related to consciousness. If you bear with me, I'll first try and answer in broad terms, then I'll focus on what it means for consciousness.

Particles-based reality at all stages is embedded in wave functions ("Ψ") - this point cannot be emphasized enough. Wave functions exist at any point in two configurations: before and after a collapse event (brought about by an interference event, whether that interference is in the form of a measurement, observation, establishment of a new chemical bond, etc.) Any wave function lives it life by jumping from a collapse event to the next one, thereby weaving the fabric of the reality.

Prior to a collapse event, there are a number of strands of possible, potential reality embedded in or circumscribed within the not-yet-actualized wave function. After collapse, only one strand becomes real, and all of the other potential strands are seen to / seem to / wholly vanish. The interpretation of how and why they vanish is what gives rise to the various interpretations of quantum physics (about 30 mainstream ones and counting), all of which may be categorized into three broad kinds of interpretation, to wit the so-called objective collapse theories, the Bohmian theories, and the many-worlds theories.

Where and how the strands of potential reality that have not actualized may have disappeared has a lot to say about whether all of reality must be, or not, embedded in material reality. For instance, the many worlds interpretations posit other extant actualized realities, which would then mean, under this particular category of theory, that everything always happens within a material framework.

However - looking at how consciousness works will seem to belie that interpretation. (There's not enough room here for me to go into Bohmian theories, let's say that there are a number of reasons why they may not be deemed final, which have been covered elsewhere.)

Application to consciousness:

It is actually not so difficult to scientifically prove, in physics, the existence of an existing state of consciousness capable of existing independently of any material support. The so-called "Hard Problem of Consciousness" stems from the fact that we are attempting to measure consciousness with tools designed to apprehend atoms, molecules, and particles: it's much like trying to assess the dimensions of a table with a voltmeter: it does not work, and then we could say that there is a "hard problem of table dimensions" in assessing the width and length of the table. To say that the table has no length, or that independent consciousness does not exist, then becomes plain circular reasoning, as in "I have only a voltmeter, and therefore the table has no length; I have only assessment tools that pertain to matter, hence consciousness per se does not exist." It’s an error of elementary logic.

As it is, it’s all rather simple. Here's what happens when you use the right tools to capture consciousness:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/14836/1/feels%20v999.pdf ,

Basically, what this paper says is that the essential property of

Ψ-collapse of material particles is seen to emphatically not apply to consciousness - which implies that consciousness can only be a fundamental property in itself, independent of matter and non-emergent from matter (such as that of the brain), because if it were dependent on and/or emergent from matter, the property of collapse would inescapably carry over into how consciousness works - which it does not.

Also, contrary to what is sometimes assumed, it is worthe noting that consciousness can very well be measured. If we are to believe current leading-edge advances in physics, it can be measured by the amplitude of certain wave function components - specifically, components of potential solutions that happen to survive a wave function collapse event in certain circumstances (possibly even by the phase of same, although far more work is required.)

So the answer to your question is that all of reality is not necessarily contained, or embedded within or circumscribed into the ensemble of particles-based material reality.

Dear Chris,

Thanks for your extensive answer. I will only suggest my unanimity with the last paragraph of your answer. Let me confine myself to three (further) questions: (i) If reality is not necessarily contained in the system of {matter;space;time} in what system then is it (reality) contained? (ii) Your answer implies that consciousness is measurable; this is (as for me) very discutable; (iii) What if it (reality) is not necessarily contained in the system of {matter;space;time}. (Note: My question regards in but beyond the material system, so the (further) question (iii)).

Thanks again for your answer! Marc.

The Entities (Individuals, Systems and Conglomerates) produce their own realities.

There is no "UNIVERSAL" reality, just different perspectives (where a perspective-= seeing things from own reality/other's presumed reality). The reality of one entity can only be presumed from outside up to a certain limit.

Dear Anamaria,

Thank you for your answer. However, I have two unsolved problems:

(i) How can you scientificly prove that there is no "UNIVERSAL" reality?

(ii) Is reality necessarily limited (e.g. in a system, etc.)?

Thanks for your answer! Marc.

1. The fact that we agreed to call a house feline a "cat" is just for common reference to an object, while the MEANING of cat is different for each of us. We might agree on its existence, but sometimes we can both have an illusion, even if we see something that appears to both of us being a 'cat".

I have no proof that there IS an "universal" reality.

2. Yes. It's limited. Although , you can get a glimpse of other's reality by assumption. This "relocation" ability is called Remoteness.

Dear Anamaria,

Thanks for your answer. Your two answers are summarily as follows:

(i) There is no scientific proof for an "universal" reality.

(ii) Reality is (necessarily or possibly, please fill in!) limited. Please don't forget to fill in.

Thanks again for your answer. Marc.

Reality is the product of Consciousness generated at the intersection of Willingness (Drive to Intuition processing) and Awareness (Signal to Knowledge processing).

In this area. the Identity is limited to Conviction (this is the reason why an unexpected signal first hits on your EQ generating a feeling), the Intelligence is limited to Expectation (this is the reason why a predicted signal gets processed by IQ generating data) and the Influence is limited to Pretension (this is the reason why a requested signal gets processed first by SQ generating a value tool).

So, by the end of the day, the Reality is made out of 3 components: Convictions, Expectations and Pretensions. This is the bubble we live in.

Dear Anamaria,

Where is your fill in at my question sub (ii)? Thanks for that fill in! Marc.

Reality is necessarily limited.

Dear Anamaria,

(i) Please proof it scientificly that {Reality is necessarily limited}.

(ii) Please proof it scienticly that {Reality is not possibly limited}.

Thank you for the answer. Marc.

(i) Take X individuals (one third must be blind, one third kids that never saw/hold an egg) and put them in front of 9 eggs (how many you want).

Those eggs must only look like eggs, but contain in fact , other stuff you can insert with a syringe or otherwise technically make-able (from funny to disgusting, from impossible to ... common). Let the guys describe what they see/ feel first (test it when they are separate and when they are together). Than let them brake in eggs in numbered plates. Move the numbered plates between participant and let them describe the content.

Reality is necessarily limited to the memory, by disposition and ... meaning allocated.

(ii) Once a new Signal is received via any Sense, Creation or Learning, the previously formed reality brakes, and this is the reason that is not possibly limited.

Reality is dynamic.

Dear Marc, Anamaria and readers;

To be not to be? That is the question.

How to define reality? That is also the question.

If only reality is the field with X,Y,Z and time, which is enough.

I do not recognize all matter is real and is some state or phase of

only vibration with fine mass in/of the field.

Man/woman is on the one leaf boat floating downstream

just as water bed, only to image what part of the body

Is not relaxed and just image to relax that part which can be with such imagination. (1)

For Dogen, “space” means the all-inclusive empty

Space that has neither boundary nor limitation. (2)

Reference

(1) Arriving at your own door JON KABAT-ZINN

(2) The essential DOGEN Kazuaki Tanahashi and Peter Levitt

Above is a kind of mindfulness and Qigong.

Kazuo Oie

Dear Anamaria,

Are these your scientific upon my questions sub (i) and (ii)? If yes, then I know enough who you are. Thanks! Marc.

In response to the original question, yes, there are real states that exist that do not exist in space-time. This is one of the things that quantum mechanics is wrestling with, so there is no settled agreement on this.

It is generally accepted that quantum states, also known as wave functions, cannot be observed directly in their coherent state. They have very real effects on everything that happens in our universe and in space-time, however, there is no conclusive evidence that quantum states exist in space-time. In fact, there is growing evidence that they do not.

I have written about this issue in a recent paper that was published in a peer reviewed journal. It is a formal interpretation of quantum mechanics that focuses on this issue. You can access it here if your are interested:

Article The Lenses of Perception Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

The paper shows that quantum states are relational states. This means that they exist between particles and they describe the responses that take place between particles.

The paper includes a number of references to other research that you might find helpful as well. In particular I refer in detail to two different papers. One describes the relational nature of quantum states and the other explains why quantum states should be treated as existing outside of space-time.

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your interesting answer. I have to read your article (The Lenses of Perception...) before asking you questions. However, one question: . In the italicized lines I have to use my scientific imagination (distinguished from 'speculation'!).

Again, thanks! Marc.

Marc, you will see in my paper that I talk about exactly the question you are asking: Should quantum states be treated as something outside of space-time, and why should we treat quantum states as existing outside of space-time?

Since explaining this properly is a long explanation, I think it is probably best for you to read the paper first and then ask questions. But the answer that I show in the paper is that, yes, it makes a lot more sense to treat quantum states as realities that exist outside of space-time.

@Michael and readers;

Noup!, there are limitless dimensions in the universe by according to my friends god at math.

I mean super strings theory.

Kazuo Oie

@Micheal;

Oh, thank you very much for your time to correct my answer.

I wish I had not made you unhappy because of my primitive answer.

I must to wonder always “Am I foolish ?,” or not, I would be completely stupid

Sincerely Yours,

Kazuo Oie

Dear Michael,

Thank you for the answer you give to Kazuo. However, what do you mean exactly by the ? Please explain it to me. Thank you again! Marc.