Shabda Blog

Ruminations on Vedic Philosophy

Quantum Theory and Evolution

Darwinian evolution or evolutionary theory predates the development of modern physics—e.g. quantum theory. The time at which the theory was developed, the best known theory of matter was classical physics, in which matter always exists in definite states. Ideas such as random mutation and natural selection in evolution were incompatible with classical physics because randomness was injected into evolution. In quantum theory, however, there is an inherent randomness, although how this randomness is overcome to create observations itself remains an unsolved problem. Therefore, evolution is inconsistent with classical physics, and although it is conceptually consistent with quantum theory, the quantum phenomena themselves present a paradox that still remains unsolved. The nature of the paradox in quantum theory, and by implication in evolutionary theory, presents an interesting parallel that most evolutionists miss. Both theories are paradoxical and this post explores the nature of the paradox.

What is the Quantum Measurement Problem?

In classical physics, matter comprises definite objects—these objects could be particles or waves—which always have a definite state. Quantum theory violates this idea and describes matter as possibilities from which a definite state is produced upon a measurement. The state of possibility is called a wavefunction and the conversion of this possibility into a definite observation is called measurement.

In classical physics, the objects have a definite state prior to measurement. So, the measurement only reveals the state prior to measurement. In quantum physics, matter is not in a definite state, and measurement creates this definite state. How the possibility becomes definite remains unknown in quantum theory. Whatever that mechanism of reducing the possibility to definiteness be, it involves the supposition that the measuring system makes a “choice” from among the possible alternatives. 

So, what is the problem? The problem is that we describe the measured system as a possibility and the measuring system as a choice. Both the measuring and the measured systems are supposed to be material. According to quantum theory, they must both be in the state of possibility. But if they are both in the state of possibility, then there could never be an event—e.g. phenomena, events, measurements, etc. because choice is required to convert the possibility into definite state, and all matter is always a possibility. 


The paradox in quantum theory is that it requires two contradictory ideas—possibility and choice—which are applied respectively to the measured and the measuring systems. These two contradictory ideas cannot be reconciled in a physical theory—i.e. a theory of material objects in space and time—without postulating two irreconcilable kinds of material entities. In other words, we can either have a theory of the measured system, or a theory of the measuring system, not both. Current quantum theory only claims to be a theory of the measured system, not a theory of the measuring system. That is, how the possibility becomes a definite reality remains and unsolved problem in quantum theory.

What is the Evolutionary Theory?

Evolutionary theory also uses two distinct ideas—namely random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation implies an uncertainty or possibility in the future states, while natural selection implies the choice of one among the many possible future states. In evolutionary theory, the organism is in the state of possibility of many future states and the environment makes a choice about which of these states will be permitted. 


Just as quantum theory splits the possibility and choice across two different entities (namely the measured and the measuring systems), similarly, evolutionary theory splits the possibility and choice across two different entities—namely, the organism and the environment. In essence, the organism is analogous to the measured system of quantum theory, while the environment is analogous to the measuring system. Both theories suffer from the same problem of creating definiteness from a possibility. In the case of evolution, for example, there is no reason to say that the organism is the “possibility” when the same organism could be considered the “choice” exercised by the environment.

Where Lies the Problem?

Both evolutionary theory and quantum measurement make conceptually identical claims, and present identical conceptual problems: How do we reconcile possibility with choice?

Within materialism, the problem of possibility and choice cannot be solved, without creating a logical contradiction. We can choose to only describe either the organism which exists as possibility, or the environment which makes a choice on these possibilities. If we combine possibility and choice in any theory in which causality exists in matter, then either that causality must equate to possibility or choice, not both. Any theory of material causality can therefore either describe possibility or choice, not both. Evolutionists believe that they are providing a complete description of the biological world, because they allow both possibility and choice in the same theory, without recognizing the contradiction.

The logical form of the contradiction in evolution is similar to the problem of measurement in quantum theory where two ideas—possibility and choice—are applied to distinct entities. Just as quantum theory is incomplete, because it can only describe either the measured or the measuring system (using two logically contradictory ideas), similarly, evolution is also incomplete. However, if we try to solve this problem, by combining possibility and choice in the same material theory of causality, then we will produce a logical contradiction, because possibility and choice are logically contradictory ideas in a material theory: either causality becomes a possibility or it becomes a choice.

The Proof of Incompleteness

Bell’s Theorem in quantum physics shows that any attempt to overcome the inherent probability in quantum theory by bringing in choice—when it is incorporated as material elements (called hidden variable theories)—would result in a logical contradiction. In other words, you cannot reconcile the contradiction between possibility and choice by reducing choice to material causality. This is because if you actually reduce choice to matter, then that choice becomes a possibility—i.e. the logical opposite of the choice.

Materialists don’t understand quantum theory well-enough, or disregard its consequences, to claim that the world of randomly created possibilities somehow becomes a definite reality, through processes that only involve material objects. They are in essence saying that we know of a way in which Bell’s Theorem in quantum physics would be proven wrong, blithely unaware that overcoming it involves a logical contradiction. 

Evolutionists are in the same boat. They claim that one day we will show how evolution explains the entire living ecosystem. They only need to understand the nature of Bell’s Theorem, and use of contradictory ideas in the theory of evolution.

Both quantum theory and evolutionary theory are either inconsistent or incomplete, if we continue using classical physical object concepts—such as particles and waves. If we use both natural selection and random mutation, then evolutionary theory is inconsistent. If we use one of them, then the theory is incomplete. Similarly, if we try to explain both measured and measuring systems using the same type of causality, then quantum theory is inconsistent. If we explain only one of them, then quantum theory is incomplete. Clearly both are required for completeness. However, in any scenario when we construe possibility and choice as two material objects of the same kind, the description is incomplete.

The Solution to Incompleteness

The answer to this incompleteness is that there is something different from both choice and uncertainty, which carries the properties of both: we know it as ideas. Ideas are uncertain because they have a hierarchy from abstract to contingent. The idea of an animal is uncertain because it can be refined into the idea of dog. And yet, the idea of a dog is also a choice because the animal could have been refined into the idea of cat.

Each idea combines some uncertainty (its level of abstractness) and some certainty (its level of contingency). In that sense, choice and uncertainty are not contradictory because the world is a combination of both. This combination is visible easily if we construct a hierarchy of concepts, such that each concept has a position in the hierarchy. We can measure the position from the top of the hierarchy and we will see that uncertainty is highest at the top and lowest at the bottom. We can also measure the position from the bottom, and we will see that certainty is highest at the bottom and the lowest at the top. Choice and uncertainty are then two perspectives on the same reality. Everything combines choice and uncertainty—the perspectives from bottom and top—but we don’t have to view it from contradictory perspectives. We can simply see the entire world as a hierarchy of concepts without the contradiction of choice and uncertainty.

The implication is that a biological form too begins in an abstract form as an idea (e.g. an animal) and it is then refined into the idea of a cat or dog, and successive additions create a specific type of biological form. The biological form is also choice, as much as it is uncertainty, quite like the environment is also choice and uncertainty. The uncertainty is decreased when matter is added, and it decreases when matter is removed. The interaction between the body and its environment should be viewed as the interaction between ideas, not as random mutation and natural selection because the body is also capable of selecting the environment—e.g. move from one environment to another.

This results in a far more complex picture of reality in which the evolution of the world is modeled as the evolution of ideas, and this evolution is not unique to biology but can also be envisioned for cultures, societies, nations, planets, and the entire universe. No present scientific theory is capable of dealing with this kind of evolution because science is presently dominated by materialist and reductionist conceptions of nature.


Evolution has become a standard materialist dogma and it involves a doublethink of applying possibility and choice to separate material entities which are then expected to be explained by the same theory. Evolutionists don’t realize that this theory is logically contradictory. Classical physical objects permit neither randomness nor choice. If, however, you shift the theory of matter to quantum physics, then you come face to face with the same problem even in the description of atomic objects.

There is possibility and choice in quantum theory and its indeterminism problems cannot be solved without a shift in our understanding of matter from material particles to symbols of ideas. In other words, there is nothing in our current understanding of quantum theory that will explain evolution, because this problem remains unsolved in quantum theory itself. We can say that evolution and quantum theory are not separate problems; rather, they represent the same problem of reconciling possibility with choices.

Related Posts

4 thoughts on “Quantum Theory and Evolution

  1. Hey this is awesome and I was thinking the same thing, in different terms though. Thank you for sharing this. There are three things and not just two, basically. A need is what causes existence, looking is a kind of need which makes something exist for the looker, but it can exist for another need. (I get that need and existence are not linear and are interlinked).

  2. Hi,
    I really enjoyed reading the post! Thanks for sharing!
    I have a question/remark, more on the biology part as I am not well educated on quantum theory.
    I may be a little too down to earth though but I’ll still ask because I am very intrigued : From what I know, I wouldn’t say that random mutation is a state of possibility, but an actual state of reality.
    What I mean is that natural selection “selects” between actually existing mutants (variants) that are actually present in a population, and it does not select for a possibility that a variant will ‘come to life’ or not. And that makes a big difference to me. I feel like here the possibility vs. choice parts are not on the same frame (maybe timeframe?). First, variants arise in a population (here maybe quantum evolution could make some variants be favored than others but that’s ‘adaptive mutations’ and still controversial I think) and once they’re here, natural selection will happen, passively, making the best fit variants live more while the others fade away.
    But I possibly missed something (the post was a bit dense to read for me). Can you guide me through this ?
    Thanks a lot!

    1. Thank you for reading, and I’m you enjoyed it.

      >> I wouldn’t say that random mutation is a state of possibility, but an actual state of reality.

      That is true. An actual mutation is when we can observe it, so the point at which the mutation has occurred, it is real. However, there is still a reason due to which we could not have *predicted* the mutation in advance, which makes us call it “random”. Now, the question is: what is that reality which *exists* and yet permits this randomness? The only viable answer is that it exists in a state of “possibility”. What is this possibility? It is an abstract state from which a concrete state is realized. For example, the concept “car” is abstract. It can be realized into many types of car. If you just want to buy a car, then your desire can be converted into one of many types of cars. In that sense, there is a “possibility” that you can buy any of the cars. But there is a definite process by which this possibility converts into a reality, and this process involves meanings, choices, and other things. If we don’t know the process, then it appears random to us, because we are unable to predict it. Ultimately, nothing is random, but there is a state of possibility — e.g. “I want a car” and it could be any of the cars available. What is available to me (e.g. within my price range, whether I have the money to spare), and whether I want it convert that possibility into reality. So there is a conversion from random to definite, but the process is far more complex than what we can describe in science presently.

      >> What I mean is that natural selection “selects” between actually existing mutants (variants) that are actually present in a population, and it does not select for a possibility that a variant will ‘come to life’ or not.

      This is partially false. Yes, the selection is after the mutant has been created. But how was the mutant created? Remember we have already said that these are “random”, which is not an explanation. So, before we talk about natural selection, we have to first talk about random mutation, or rather why it may not be random. When we have an understanding of why the mutation was not random, then we can have a better description why there is selection, and how it operates. Otherwise, we are operating on a false premise of random mutation, when the biggest question is: Why is it random? In any theory, by injecting arbitrary variation we can arrive at any arbitrary conclusion. And since you can arrive at any arbitrary conclusion, the entire process is flawed.

      We should view natural selection as not just a biological process that happens slowly and causes the slow body evolution, but something that happens all the time. If you have money in your pocket, there are many ways you can spend it. The environment will “select” how you spend your money, but that environment is not the only selecting agent because you also have your innate drift in spending habits and choice. The idea that environment forces you to spend your money and you have no choice is completely contrary to all other areas of understanding — e.g. economics — which rests on “consumer choice”.

      The problem is not in selection but in the rejection of the idea of choice by insisting that the initial change is random. Yes, environment constrains us and we call this “nurture”. But we also have a “nature”. That nature should be a part of the explanation and how it involves choices, rather than always calling my change as “random” and giving choices to the environment.

      As we know, compatibility is a mutual problem. Square peg will not fit into a round hole, but we cannot blame either the peg or the hole for it. It is possible that the square peg forces the hole to become square, in which case the peg is the “environment”. Is it also possible that the round hole makes the peg round in which the hole is the “environment”. So, what is environment here” Peg or the hole? You can never say that clearly. You basically look at the outcome — did the peg change its shape or the hole? — and then retrospectively decide what is the environment vs. what is the mutant. That’s not science, because there is no way to disprove this theory as it relies not on prediction but retrospective explanation and justification for what has happened.

Comments are closed.