The Theory of Perceptual Reality – the double slit experiment finally resolved!

(As endorsed by the Physics Department of the University of Liverpool)


In its purest form, humankind is not divisible by clearly defined points of separation but is, at heart, one unified field of subconscious connectivity.

We are all individuals; yet we are all of one mind.

And so when a detection is made at slit level , it is the perceptual reality which is spectacularly transformed rather than any independent, objective reality.

This theory thus asserts that by exposing the true nature of material reality, the double slit experiment not only enables us to reconcile science and religion, but all religions with each other.

All philosophy, all religion should begin here.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay  

(PLEASE NOTE: This is a dynamic document and, therefore, liable to revision.)


In order to settle the long-standing wave-particle duality dilemma as revealed in the legendary double slit experiment, the list of ‘principles’ below is an attempt to employ reason to establish as a logical truth that a ‘perceptual reality’ would be truly indistinguishable from an ‘objective reality’.


The conviction that a veil separates the material realm from a non-material realm has long been fundamental to humanity’s attempt to make sense of its own existence and this, of course, is the cornerstone of all major religions.  However, this perspective has been incrementally undermined over the past two hundred years owing to the increasing philosophical pre-eminence of scientific methodology.

The Theory of Perceptual Reality, itself, is agnostic as it does not argue for the existence of God, but nor does it preclude the existence of God. It utilises logic in order to probe the limits of what is knowable and, based on the Quantum Conundrum,  reaches the conclusion that there is another level of reality beyond the physical plane, and that human consciousness (and sub-consciousness) survives physical death because it is not the creation of ‘perceptual reality’, but the creator.  

The theory proposes that ‘perceptual reality’ generates the ‘illusion’ of a material world and that behind this ‘veil’ lies a realm of pure energy – the unknowable ‘wave’.

The theory further proposes that ‘perceptual reality’ exists via the indivisible connectivity of humanity at a subconscious level, and by the limits placed upon human awareness in order to deny conscious access to this other dimension of what is presumed to be pure energy.


By opening up this ‘Theory of Perceptual Reality’ to general scrutiny, it is hoped that any failings in the theory will be noted and communicated back so that an opportunity is provided to make any necessary corrections and enhancements. 

The theory is the property of everyone who cares to take part in the process of its verification or falsification.


All confirmed logic errors will be corrected.

All confirmed omissions will be included.

All confirmed ambiguities or confusions will be clarified.

All confirmed incidents of repetitiveness or verbosity will be removed.

As it is an ‘open source’ theory, the above list of anticipated issues, and this proposed methodology, are also open to general scrutiny and, therefore, to revision.

Should the theory reach a point where it cannot be amended to general satisfaction, then the theory will have failed its own test and will, no doubt, fall into disregard. Should the theory reach a point of wide general acceptance, then the theory will stand – at least until it is superseded by a better description of reality.

 This process of scrutiny and revision will be ongoing until the theory is either generally accepted, or generally refuted.


This list of ‘principles’ below is designed to logic-proof the Theory of Perceptual Reality with the intention that it cannot be proven falsifiable. Therefore, the list is required to reflect all aspects of human experience. Once the principles have been fully tested and amended as outlined in the methodology above, if the theory still stands then it will have been established as the best explanation of the Quantum Conundrum (as revealed in the double slit experiment) and, therefore, as the best possible description of ‘reality’ currently available.

This will be the full extent of the theory’s contribution to human knowledge, and the theory’s value will only hold until a better explanation of the Quantum Conundrum emerges.


The central premise in the Theory of Perceptual Reality is derived through a process of inductive reasoning and proposes that the double slit experiment irrefutably exposes two levels of reality: subjective / perceptual reality and objective / unknowable reality. When ‘particles’ are detected passing through one of the slits, pin pricks of light appear on the photosensitive screen in the shape of two bands rather than the interference pattern which otherwise would have appeared.

The theory proposes that the only plausible explanation for this is that the perceived reality has been altered by the detection. In effect, there is no wave collapse. The wave remains fully intact, but in the unaffected objective reality, where it has always been, and where it is totally undetectable.  But because a particle has been detected / perceived as having passed through a slit, the subjective reality that we inhabit instantly registers the effect of particles rather than the wave-associated interference pattern which appears when the detector is switched off.

However, just because all of what we experience is a perceived reality and not an objective reality, it is still in every possible respect a reality. The only difference is that because of the double slit experiment, we now know that there is also an objective reality beyond.

This idea of a perceptual reality accounting for the Quantum Conundrum is certainly much more economical than the ‘many worlds’ theory as it only requires two fixed dimensions as opposed to the never-ending creation of new universes every time a quantum determination is made. It would also reconcile Einstein’s and Bohr’s disagreement on the objective / subjective nature of reality. It is not a case of reality being one or the other; it is both.


  1. The theory argues that ‘perceptual reality’ creates the impression that ‘physical reality’ is an absolute reality.
  2. However, this physical reality only exists because it is being perceived. Therefore, every person’s reality is a separate reality, but with such a high degree of commonality that we can largely agree that we do inhabit the same universe. 
  3. This would imply a collective human consciousness (and sub-consciousness), an idea previously proposed by Jung. This would also explain why we have the capacity to share information with each other through language and other means, a phenomenon generally taken for granted.
  4. But because we are fundamentally conscious beings, our subconscious connectivity is obscured by personal self-awareness. Therefore, we are oblivious of the power of this subconscious relationship which both unites all humanity, and which makes the ‘illusion’ of a perceived physical reality possible.
  5. However, we are all aware of the power of the subconscious to create an all-consuming and incredibly detailed surrealistic reality when dreaming.
  6. Other species are also subconsciously connected, but to a much more evident degree. This is clear from their collective behaviours, for example, when watching a colony of insects or a flock of birds in flight.
  7. The bandwidth of consciousness of other species is clearly set at different ranges to ours, but with sufficient overlap for some basic level of interspecies communication, e.g. between humans and dogs. Between much more genetically disparate species there is absolutely no overlap of bandwidth and so interspecies communication in this instance is impossible, e.g. between humans and insects.
  8. Perceptual reality extends from the microscopic level of the particle to the macroscopic level of the universe. It convinces us that the universe, including our own bodies, is made of matter, and not pure energy.
  9. Over the past two centuries, the incredible rate of expansion of scientific and technological understanding has created a philosophical dilemma never before experienced. This exponential increase in investigative power presents a challenge to this perceptual ‘illusion’.
  10. A fundamental aspect of the human subconscious commonality of perception, as revealed by the double slit experiment, is that as long as at least one person has a ‘true’ (wholly accurate) awareness that a detection is being made at slit level prior to the appearance of the electron pattern on the photosensitive screen, then the perceived outcome of the event will thus have been determined for every other human being thereafter, i.e. the electrons will form a particle pattern for all to observe.
  11. Both awareness of the on/off state of the detector, and awareness of the outcome of the electron pattern itself, are to be regarded as perceived events of equal value.  Whichever event enters human consciousness first will determine the perceptual outcome for everyone. Thus, if the a particle pattern is observed prior to checking the on/off state of the detector, then the detector will later be found to have been switched on. Similarly, if a wave pattern is observed prior to checking the on/off state of the detector, then the detector will later be found to have been switched off. (The conditions by which the on/off state of the detector might not be known prior to the detection itself are dealt with later on in this document.)
  12. There is an absolute distinction between a perceived ‘true’ awareness of the state of a detection, or state of an electron pattern, and a false awareness which is falsely believed to be true. Only a true awareness will determine the perceptual reality.
  13. A true awareness equals an accurate perception as opposed to an inaccurate / false perception, i.e. as far as perceptual reality is concerned, the event really did occur.
  14. A false perception of an event at either a microscopic or macroscopic level of reality may be prolific in its ability to influence human thought, but it is influencing human consciousness, rather than entering into human sub-consciousness where it really does fundamentally change perceptual reality. False perceptions are thus unstable and their influence is ultimately limited.
  15. The laws of physics exist outside of perceptual reality and emanate from the objective, unknowable reality, but their operation both objectively exists, and is perceived to exist, in the perceptual realm.
  16. Thus objective reality appears to animate the subjective realm in which perceptual reality resides.
  17. The true nature of this objective reality is the ‘wave’, i.e. what is presumed to be a pure, unified and indivisible energy source, but humanity is not allowed to directly perceive the ‘wave’ in its purest form. In the perceptual universe, we perceive this ‘wave’ as matter, for example, when investigated microscopically.
  18. There is an absolute distinction between belief and a true perception.
  19. In perceptual reality, there is no difference between a ‘true’ perception and a ‘true’ event. Everything is a perception, apart from the laws of physics which govern our perceptual universe because, as stated earlier, they are both objectively, and subjectively, real.
  20. There is an absolute distinction between a reported event and a perceived event. The reported event does enter into perceptual reality in the form of an account of the event. However, it may ultimately come to be perceived as false or distorted and, therefore, a reported event is much less stable.
  21. Perceptual reality is built into human DNA in that the perceptual ‘frequency’ of human awareness has been pre-determined, and this pre-determination is a function of the brain. This is clear when we consider the limitations placed on human beings in terms of how much of the electromagnetic spectrum can directly be detected through eyesight.
  22. The brain, therefore, is not the creator of consciousness, but the means by which it is projected into a material reality. Clear evidence of this is those very rare instances where severe brain trauma actually enhances intellectual prowess by freeing the intellect from some of the physical limitations which inhibit it, e.g. Daniel Tammet and Jason Padgett.
  23. The pre-determined frequency at which human consciousness is set enables a tightly controlled chain of perceived information to be enforced upon the perceptual realm.
  24. This control of information relates to the nature of reality, and not the narrative of reality, i.e. it largely determines the stage rather than the action.
  25. There will always be one person who will have a true awareness of an event OR true awareness of the state of the detection of an event before any other person. The first true perception determines the perception for all other later perceptions generally regarded to be true.
  26. False perceptions may follow a true perception, but they will be far less stable and so much less effective in determining perceptual reality.
  27. Occasionally these principles will break down in an individual’s personal perceptual reality and there will be an incongruity between an event and that person’s perceived awareness of the event.

For example:

A tree is detected by an electronic sensor to have fallen in a forest. On arriving at the forest, the tree has not fallen. On returning, the detector is not perceived to have malfunctioned (which would normally be how perceptual reality would resolve a potential incongruity). This is clearly an error in perceptual reality, but as it happens very rarely it will generally be dismissed as ‘odd’ or ‘strange’. The individual may well make a point of discussing it with others but, crucially, humanity still holds faith with perceptual reality. However, such is the incongruity that people tend to remember such breakdowns in perceptual reality for a long time afterwards. Such occasional breakdowns will generally involve minor incidents.

27. Certain types of breakdowns in an individual’s perceptual reality will often be ascribed to God, or some other generally accepted unseen force.

28. Widespread breakdowns in perceptual reality occur even more infrequently, otherwise the system of perceptual reality would fail on an unacceptable scale, and the human ‘drama’ would be contaminated by existential confusion. This phenomenon of more general breakdown has been noted, for example, mass hallucination and the Mandela Effect. Fortunately, humanity makes every effort to create a rational explanation

29. Incongruities in perceptual reality between people will occur if a person is detuned from the normal ‘frequency’ of perceptual reality through hallucinogens, sleep deprivation, mental illness, etc. These reported breakdowns at an individual scale will normally be easily dismissed and so will not affect the integrity of the global perceptual reality.

30. Incongruities in perceptual reality between people can also be accommodated by differing value systems and beliefs.

31. An individual who suffers from a major incongruity in his / her perceptual reality may be so traumatised that he / she will have a sense of reality breakdown. However, this will be ascribed to mental illness by the vast majority of other people who have not experienced such an incongruity. 

32. On even rarer occasions when such an incongruity happens to a group of people, members of the group will be reassured of their own sanity by their collective experience, and this experience may well become extremely noteworthy, but ultimately the vast majority of people will not take their claims too seriously as these claims will be beyond the realm of the mainstream of perceptual experience.

33. Occasionally, objects will simply disappear from perceptual reality only to be found in plain sight at a later date – an acknowledged anomaly known as Disappearing Object Phenomenon (D.O.P). The time period for this will usually be short (although this is not always the case) and the individual will usually put it down to their own lack of awareness or focus. Some will also ascribe it to the ‘strange’ category.

34. Coincidence is a genuine problem and, owing to the complexity of the perceptual reality system, cannot be avoided, but not to worry – people will generally dismiss it as … coincidence.

35. Déjà vu is a much bigger issue but, fortunately, it is very rare, i.e. normally a once in a life-time occurrence for those who experience it.

36. Prescience is enabled on the human bandwidth, possibly in order to enable the introduction of information which cannot otherwise be introduced into the perceptual reality information chain. Such information will generally be regarded as mystical, and may lose value as human technology advances.

37. Some of the above principles strongly suggest that perceptual reality is a simulation governed by an algorithm which occasionally experiences coding errors.

38. Overall, the system of perceptual reality is not one hundred percent perfect, but the overwhelming success rate of the above principles over the course of human history means that the vast majority of people are blissfully unaware that perceptual reality is radically different to absolute reality.

Thus it would appear valid to conclude that one of the very few absolutes in the perceptual realm is that for most of us, as we interact with the universe in our day to day lives, subjective reality and objective reality are one and the same.


If Time begins at some point beyond the confines of the atom – i.e. Time does not exist within the subatomic realm – OR if there is different level of Time in the subatomic world – then this might explain such mysteries as entanglement, wave-particle duality and quantum jumps. The point where Time begins may well be the exact point at which decoherence occurs, i.e. the point at which the particle grows large enough for the wave-function to become undetectable.

If Time does begin at this point, then this would explain why a subatomic ‘particle’ can appear simultaneously to exist in two different locations until a measurement has been made. The measurement exists within Time and so creates a fixed point. This fixed point is the particle. However, the unmeasurable wave phenomenon itself does not exist within Time and, therefore, whilst there may have been a collapse of the wave function’ as far as we are concerned, the intrinsic wave-nature of the phenomenon remains unaffected, and outside of Time. So an observation / detection simply captures a moment in which the timeless wave has been ‘detected’ within Time, i.e. we observe a particle – a miniscule, ‘frozen’, granular segment of the unknowable, timeless, objective-reality wave.

This would also explain why introducing one electron at a time into the double slit experiment still ultimately produces an interference pattern (if a detection at slit level is not being made, that is). This is because although we perceive electrons, the wave that we are unable to directly perceive exists outside of Time. So, in effect, it may appear to us that we have been firing electrons through the slits one at a time, when in reality the entire wave has simultaneously passed through the two slits in its entirety.

This may be the reason why General Relativity cannot describe the quantum world, i.e. because G.R. deals with both Space, and Time.


Someone recently asked me how the Theory of Perceptual Reality would explain an accidental activation of a detector which occurred unknown to anyone – and I really don’t know if such an anomaly has ever occurred during a double-slit experiment. If so, a number of possibilities exist:

  1. The wave function collapses as a result of a detection having been made even though no human being is aware of that detection having taken place. All observers are amazed to see the wave function collapse and so rush over to check the state of the detector, and all are surprised to see that it was, in fact, switched on. This could mean that the collective subconscious having registered the surprising collapse of the wave function, now unanimously registers the detector as having been switched on after all. Thus the detector sits within perceptual reality just as much as the photosensitive screen.
  2. However, could it ever be possible that all observers, having witnessed an unexpected wave function collapse, race over to check the state of the detector only to discover that it is, in fact, switched off!? I wonder if there has ever been a single occasion when there has been such a mismatch between the on/off state of the detector and the observed pattern on the photo-sensitive screen? This would be one of those rare events when the system of perceptual reality experiences a breakdown – and it would certainly be noted as most bizarre, but it would most likely ultimately be dismissed as a malfunction of the detector.
  3. Taking a simulation hypothesis, it could be that the laws which govern our material reality, and which thus determine the outcome of the double-slit experiment, are such that they are self-insulating. As the detector itself is subject to perceptual reality, it could be that these hidden rules dictate that there will always be a match between the on/off state of the detector and the observed pattern on the photosensitive screen regardless of which is noted first. It would, in effect, be an additional law of physics, a sort of ‘Second Universal Law of Information’, the first being that the transfer of information is restricted to the speed of light – apart from entanglement, of course. (A Third Universal Law of Information would relate to the aforementioned subconscious interconnectivity within a species which is so central to this theory.) So, if two bands are detected even though the detector is thought to have been switched off, then later inspection of the detector would inevitably reveal that it was, in fact, switched on. A computer algorithm could easily factor this into its calculations so as to always maintain the integrity of the double-slit phenomenon.
  4. One possible explanation of why the wave function collapses as a result of a detection at slit level could be that any detection (either premeditated or accidental) pulls the section of the wave detected into the macro-sphere of material reality in which Time is pre-eminent. Thus a fragment is always created, and two bands are always recorded on the photosensitive screen as opposed to the interference pattern. The recorded fragment, therefore, would be representative of the measure of the frequency of the detected phase of the wave at the exact point it was ‘pulled’ into Time, the pantheon of the particle zoo being the inevitable outcome of this process. Consequently, ultimate reality is not constructed out of the confusing complexity of the Standard Model, but is really underpinned by the energy level / levels of the unknowable wave.

If all of this sounds too mystical to be scientific, then we should consider that the ability of atoms to take on the guise of a material universe is in itself truly mystical. Furthermore, Physics is full of fanciful, unprovable theories, such as the Many-Worlds Interpretation, and the established physics community seems to pick and choose which of these fanciful theories are to be allowed open expression, and which are to be deemed career suicide.


If a computer were to be used to randomly programme the detector on or off, thus making the state of the detector unknowable to humankind at the time of the detection, would the wave function still collapse when the detector is activated? If yes, then the data on the computer accessed after the experiment would always accord with the outcome of the experiment, i.e. ON if two bands are observed, OFF if a wave pattern is observed. Thus artificial intelligence would exist within the realm of perceptual reality, and this would confirm the relationship between the detector and the observed particle pattern on the photosensitive screen as an irrevocable Universal Law of Information. But if there is a disconnect, then A.I. would exist outside of perceptual reality – which would be truly fascinating!

(I’m sure this experiment has already been conducted but as I’ve never heard of it ever having taken place, I am assuming that the results must have been as one would expect.)


Being brutally honest, it all suggests that our reality is a simulation.

%d bloggers like this: