In this section on ‘Worldview Transformation,’ we explore the various ways our current materialistic worldview is sustained. This includes examples from language and assumptions that reinforce the programmed belief that the universe is purely physical and that spacetime is a fixed, objective reality.

#1) Discussing Objective Reality
In ‘Nexus’, the latest work by historian Yuval Noah Harari – author of ‘Sapiens’ and ‘Homo Deus’ – he defines objective reality in the following way: ‘Objective reality consists of things like stones, mountains and asteroids, things that exist whether we’re aware of them or not. An asteroid hurtling towards planet Earth exists even if nobody knows it’s out there.’

Why This Definition Is Incomplete In A Mental Universe
In a mental or biocentric framework, objective reality as Harari describes it doesn’t hold. This is because spacetime – and everything within it – depends on the observer. Therefore, an asteroid isn’t simply ‘out there’ in the way we traditionally think of it.

Legendary physicist John Wheeler famously stated: “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

Now, consider the scenario where an asteroid goes undetected and collides with Earth. The moment of impact, when it’s first noticed by onlookers, is when it truly comes into being. Reality is not a static, independent occurrence; it is a dynamic process, continuously shaped by observation. In this view, those witnessing the impact aren’t merely passive spectators – they are co-creators of the event itself. Before it is observed, all the particles that make up the asteroid exist in a state of superposition. They exist only as potential, and not until they’re observed do they have concrete values.

How Should We Discuss ‘Objective’ Reality In Light Of This Perspective?
Once we adopt this mental or biocentric worldview, the term ‘objective reality’ becomes problematic. A more accurate term might be ‘intersubjective reality’: a reality that is shared among observers. While we all observe similar phenomena, and thus can discuss them collectively, they aren’t objective in the traditional sense.

However, Harari already uses the term ‘intersubjective reality’ in ‘Nexus’ to describe shared concepts like countries, currencies, religions, and brands. So, what term should we use for these abstract constructs? I suggest ‘idea-based realities’. The United States, for example, exists in our collective minds as a country, but if we stopped talking and thinking about it, it would cease to have any meaning.

‘Nexus’ explores how the stories we tell one another shape our perception of reality. In a biocentric worldview, this concept applies not just to shared ideas but to physical reality itself. Ultimately, objective reality, as we’ve traditionally understood it, doesn’t exist – no matter what stories we may tell about it.