In cosmology, one faces the unusual situation that the observer (contained within the universe) and the observed (a part of the universe, which, by definition is also contained within the universe) are part of the same universe. As such, theories of cosmological import must ultimately account for the structure and evolution of the entire system or universe, utilizing experiments carried out in the present that are used to deduce the state of the large-scale universe in the distant past. The most accepted theory of the large-scale structure of the universe is big bang cosmology, which has achieved impressive results (Silk, 1989).

However, big bang cosmology requires extremely fine tuning. This fine tuning is most remarkable as related to the so-called flatness problem: If the universe is close to being flat today, it was exactly equal to flat to one part in 10⁵⁰ near the time of the big bang. This may indeed be related to other applicable coincidences, rather than being a case in itself. The usual interpretation of the flatness problem has been given in terms of the inflationary model of the universe, which occurred at time scales ~ 10^-35 sec after the beginning. The inflationary model of Guth and others (cf. Guth and Steinhardt, 1984) accounts for the flatness of the universe and is also proposed to solve another challenge, the so-called horizon problem, or apparent isotropy of the 2.73 K black body cosmic microwave background radiation or CMBR seen by the satellite COBE (Smoot, 1996).

Although the 2.73 K radiation was emitted ~ 10⁵ years after the beginning, opposite sides of the sky at that time were out of causal contact, separated by ~ 10⁷ light years. What caused the observed isotropy of the CMBR? Other correlations in the large-scale structure of the universe exist such as very large structures (superclusters or extended filaments or sheets of galaxies) in the distribution of matter (Geller and Huchra, 1989) which may persist at all scales extending to the scale of the universe itself.

However, any general relativistic Friedmann- Robertson-Walker big bang model, as well as any other non-big bang cosmological model, cannot be considered outside the process of cosmological observation itself and is ultimately intricately interwoven with limits imposed by observation itself (Kafatos, 1989, 1996, 1998). Any theoretical construct predicts horizons of knowledge at some ultimate, faint observational limit. For the big bang theory, since photons are used to study the universe, the evolving universe becomes opaque to its own radiation at redshifts z ~ 10³, or ~ 10⁵ years after the big bang. Ultimately, observational limitations prohibit verifying cosmological theories to any degree of accuracy for any observational test. Moreover, as Kafatos (1989) showed, ultimately source position and spectra from sources would become confused due to the existence of very few photons from distant sources and the wave-particle duality which forces experiment choices (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Cosmological Realm: Complementarity as a scale-bridging foundational principle .

For all practical purposes, the big bang galaxy formation theory runs into verification problems at much smaller redshifts, z ~ 4 ^-10, close to distances discerned by the Hubble Space Telescope and future space telescopes. The reason is that the type and evolutionary history of the "standard candles" (such as galaxies) used to measure the Hubble expansion rate and overall structure of the universe cannot be unequivocally determined independently of the cosmology itself (Kafatos, 1989). Even recent views of an accelerating universe ultimately depend on understanding very distant sources and the characteristics of the distant Type I supernovae. Although elegant and in many ways supported by evidence, the big bang, of the inflationary kind, cosmology has progressively become ensnarled by current evidence and by its own strong predictions.

However, before such efforts to describe the universe succeed, we need to look at both the very large and very small (cosmology and quantum) realms. Cosmological theories and theories of fundamental physics must ultimately not only account for the structure and evolution of the universe, the physics of fundamental interactions but also lead to an understanding of why this particular universe follows the physics that it does. Such theories must lead to an understanding of the values of the fundamental constants themselves. Moreover, the understanding of universe has to utilize experimental data from the present to deduce the state of the universe in distant regions of the past and also account for certain peculiarities (such as the distribution of matter in the universe) or coincidences (such as the flatness problem) observed.

2.2 The Arrow of Time in Cosmology– an Alternate View

The question of time is equally important. In ordinary physics (including "one vector’ quantum theory) time flows in one direction. Aharonov et al. (1964) proposed instead a two vector theory, which is in total agreement with ordinary quantum theory: time also flows from the future to the past, providing a completeness in the description of physical phenomena. Departing also from ordinary ideas about the one vector "flow of time", Kafatos, Roy and Roy (2005) took a different approach than the usual evolutionary picture where the physics itself is assumed invariable.

Kafots et al. (2005) showed that these coincidences could be re-interpreted in terms of relationships linking the masses of elementary particles as well as the total number of nucleons in the universe (or Eddington’s number) to other fundamental "constants" such as the gravitational constant, G, the charge of the electron, e, Planck’s constant, h, and the speed of light, c. They studied some numerical relations among fundamental constants starting from relationships first proposed by Weinberg (1972), which turn out to be equivalent to the relations found by Dirac (1937) and Eddington (1931), and explored a new scaling hypothesis relating the speed of light c and the scale of the universe R. They conclude that scale-invariant relationships result, e.g. all lengths are then proportional to the scale of the universe R, etc. Note, however, that we cannot deduce the actual variation or the initial value of c and other constants from observations: The relationship that they found, c ≡ R is not enough to tell us the actual variation or even over "how long" it takes place. It is a scale invariant relationship. If we re-write it as a scale-invariant relationship, c(t_*)/c(t_o) = R (t_*)/ R (t_o) where t_* and t_o could be conveniently taken as the Planck time and the present "age" of the universe, then this relationship is not enough to give us the evolution of or even the values of t_* and t_o. Hence it cannot tell us how c itself is varying or even if it is varying. If we wanted to insist that c is constant, then all the other "constants" like G and h are really constant as well. But if c is not constant, then all the other "constants" are varying as well. In both cases, however, the number of particles is changing, the ratios of masses are changing and the ratios of scales or lengths are also changing. An arrow of time could, therefore, be introduced. In this picture, invariant relationships hold and from unity, there is evolution into diversity. As such, the arrow of time is introduced in an observer-dependent universe as these fundamental "constants" change (e.g. Eddington’s number varies from Np  1 at the time of big bang to  10⁸⁰ today, etc). Time does not exist independently of conscious observers. This approach is equivalent to an axiomatic approach which results in an apparent expanding universe, yielding the same successes as present big bang cosmology but without the need to postulate inflation, cold dark matter, cosmological constant or any of the artificialities of current theory.

Time is strictly a parameter that can be introduced in the above scale-invariant relationships. It has no meaning by itself . The universe appears to be evolving as the number of particles and ratios are varying.

2.3 The Quantum Universe

One can notice that we still don’t have a quantum theory of gravity, and hence cannot properly describe theoretically the universe. Nevertheless, quantum processes are fundamental in the universe and prevalent at all times (the basic nature of matter and energy is described in terms of quantum theories such as QED, QCD, Supersymmetry & String Theories). Moreover, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe was in quantum state early-on (at the Planck time and at high energies/densities in such an evolving universe).

If QM is so important to the universe, particularly in the early eras, perhaps it plays an even more fundamental role, through the act of observation itself, which only properly is part of modern QM. The remarkable correlations exhibited at cosmological scales are reminiscent of Bell-type quantum correlations (Bell, 1964) that were so abhorrent to Einstein (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, 1935) and yet confirmed by the Aspect and Gisin experiments (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Illustration of the Aspect Experiment.

Kafatos (1989) and Roy and Kafatos (1999b) proposed that Bell-type correlations would be pervasive in the early universe arising from the common electron-positron annihilations: Binary processes involving Compton scattering of the resultant gamma-ray photons with electrons would produce N-type correlations (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Bell-type correlations in the early universe.

In these conditions, the outcome of the cascade of processes (even in the absence of observers) would produce space-like correlations among the original entangled photons. Kafatos and Nadeau (2000) and Kafatos (1998) have in turn proposed three types of non-localities: Spatial or Type I; temporal or Type II (or Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment), wherein the "path" of a photon is not determined until a delayed choice is made.

In some strange sense, the past is brought together (in the sense that the path is not determined) by the experimental choice. This non-locality confirmed in the laboratory could also occur over cosmological distances (Wheeler, 1981; Roy and Kafatos, 2000). Type III non-locality (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000) represents the unified whole of space-time revealed in its complementary aspects as the unity of space (Type I) and the unity of time (Type II non-10 locality). It exists outside the framework of space and time and cannot, therefore, be discerned by the scientific method although its existence is implied.

The Bell correlations in the early universe may prove to provide that non-local link in a natural way, as the outcome of QM processes themselves. As such, the universe would be quantum at a very fundamental level and not just near the beginning.

The deep underlying wholeness of the universe is revealed in a series of Universal Diagrams (UD) (Kafatos, 1986; Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000). These can be constructed by placing various physical quantities of many different objects in the universe on common, multidimensional plots. 2-D diagrams have been constructed involving the mass, size, luminous output, surface temperature and entropy radiated away (see Fig. 4) of different objects in the universe. These diagrams originally constructed for astronomical objects (Kafatos, 1986) have been revised and extended to all scales including biological entities, industrial and man-made objects, living organisms, etc. The overall appearance of the UDs does not change as more objects are introduced, rather the specifics of smaller regions within a UD become more refined. Over smaller regions, different power laws can be found to fit the data, while more global relationships can be found that approximately fit many different classes of objects (such as an approximately linear relationship between entropy radiated away and mass).

It is found that black holes provide boundaries in the UDs and often cut across the main relationships in these diagrams. The values of the constants (and their ratios) and the laws of physics are determining the overall relationships and as such the diagrams must be related to cosmological coincidences. There are large scale correlations revealed in these diagrams among different dimensions (other than space and time examined above) or parameters which extend beyond the quantum or cosmological realms, to realms such as living organisms, etc. It follows that non-locality in the sense of global multidimensional correlations, is revealed by the UDs to be a foundational principle of the structure of the cosmos along with complementarity (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000).

Figure 4. Universal Realm: Universal Diagram.

It has become clear that quantum non-locality related to Bell’s Theorem and revealed by the Aspect and Gisin experiments (Stapp, 1979; Aspect, Grangier & Roger, 1982; Tittel, Brendel, Zbinden & Gisin, 1998; Kafatos & Nadeau, 2000; Nadeau and Kafatos, 1999) has demonstrated the inadequacy of classical, local realistic theories to account for quantum-like correlations and the nature of underlying reality. The epistemological and ontological consequences are far-reaching (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000) and imply a non-local, undivided reality. Moreover, Drãgãnescu and Kafatos (2000), Kafatos and Drãgãnescu (2003), explore the possibility that foundational principles operate at all levels in the physical as well as beyond the physical aspects of the cosmos. These foundational principles are meta-mathematical or pre-mathematical in the sense that mathematical constructs of the physical universe emerge from them. Such generalized principles include a generalized principle of complementarity.

In the generalized complementarity framework (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000; Nadeau and Kafatos1999), complementary constructs need to be considered to formulate a complete picture of a scientific field under examination (e.g. the large-scale structure of the universe) as a horizon of knowledge is approached. This means that as a horizon is approached, ambiguity as to a unique view of the universe sets in. It was precisely these circumstances that apply at the quantum level, which prompted Bohr to affirm that complementary constructs should be employed (Bohr, 1961).

If truly universal, these principles should apply at all scales. Non-locality also appears to be prevalent at different scales. Quantum theory has shown that the whole is not just the sum of its constituent parts. For example, the quantum vacuum is much richer and complex than any system of particles interacting among themselves. Studying particle interactions, no matter how complex, will not tell us much about the vacuum as the latter is unaffected by such interactions. These developments are indicative of the need to develop a new way to approach problems that have so far eluded ordinary physical science and cosmology in particular. We will see that such generalized principles may also apply at biological levels and as such are truly universal.

The issue of consciousness remains a major challenge for science. Despite great success in several fields including neuroscience, psychology; as well as developments in the philosophy of science and foundations of quantum theory, the basic challenge remains that science is based on the dichotomy between subject and object. Traditionally, science has studied objective reality, assuming in principle that there is an objective world that can be studied independently of the existence of observers. Yet, quantum theory has opened the door to the issue of consciousness in the sense that objective reality cannot be disentangled from the act of observation. The EPR experiment and Bell’s Theorem have demonstrated that whatever "reality" might be, it is non-local and tied to the act of observation.

3.2 Quantum Biology

The understanding of how the fundamental physical interactions of inanimate matter and electromagnetic radiation, give rise to cellular dynamics of living organisms and the perceptual experience of human beings, is one of the most challenging problems (cf. Szent-Györgi, 1960) facing science today (for a review of material in this section and section 3.3, see Ceballos et al., 2009). Information is an essential component in the study of living entities, as there exists a fundamental relationship between the dynamic organization of energy and the processing of biological information. It is essential to understand the type of information, e.g. quantum vs. classical, that is involved, particularly in regards to the human brain, but not just applied to human conscious processes. The human brain represents a particularly major challenge to describe and understand the multitude of processes applicable over a vast range of spatio-temporal domains (e.g. Bernroider and Roy, 2004). Fig. 5 shows this vast range of space-time.

Figure 5. Range of spatio-temporal domains found in the human brain.

The old paradigm of bottom-up approach in increased complexity of living organisms to try to explain the phenomena of life, may not be applicable (i.e. complexity is simply a result of putting together structures from lower levels to higher levels, see Fig. 6).

Figure 6. The old paradigm of increased complexity in living organisms.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the overall structures, requiring often global relationships, and extreme efficiency with which biological organisms operate, requires the use of quantum mechanical formalisms at biologically, and neurophysiologically, relevant space and time scales (cf. Bernroider and Roy, 2005; Ceballos et al., 2009; Davies, 2004, 2005; Frohlich, 1983; Hagan et. al., 2002; Hameroff et. al., 2002; Hammeroff and Tuszynski, 2003; Hunter, 2006; Mesquita et. al., 2005; Rosa and Faber, 2004; Roy and Kafatos, 2004; Stapp, 2004). The issue of quantum entanglement has become a strong debatable issue particularly as it applies to the brain (e.g. Tegmark, 2000). However, accumulating evidence suggests that quantum interference and entanglement are much more robust than had previously been accepted, and may indeed turn out to be fundamental to a rigorous understanding of bio-molecular and brain dynamics (e.g. Bernroider and Roy, 2004; 2005; Prokhorenko et al., 2006; Parson, 2007; Engel, 2007). For example, macroscopic quantum entanglement has been discovered to exist at room temperature (e.g. Fillaux et. al., 2006); quantum coherent spin transfers between quantum dots bridged with benzene molecules are observed to be more efficient at room temperature than at near absolute zero temperatures (e.g. Ouyang and Awschalom, 2003); long-lived macroscopic entanglement between two distinct objects (e.g. Julsgaard, et. al., 2001); and quantum superposition of distinct macroscopic states, have all been experimentally found (cf. Friedman et. al., 2000). These developments mirror progress in quantum experiments, where quantum entanglement has been proven to affect macroscopic observables (e.g. Ghosh et. al., 2003; Brukner, Vedral, and Zeilinger, 2006).

However, despite progress in the lab, the theoretical application of QM to biological problems is in its infancy, even given the understanding of its importance to the fields of bio-molecular dynamics and quantum chemistry (e.g. Bernroider and Roy, 2005; Ceballos et al., 2009; Davies, 2004; 2005; Engel, 2007; Hunter, 2006; Parson, 2007; Shemella et. al., 2007; van Mourik, 2004; ). QM calculations are integral for modeling and understanding fundamental biochemical reactions and dynamics (e.g. Engel et. al., 2007). Living organisms have achieved a quantum level of sensitivity to different types of external stimuli (e.g. Angioy et al., 2003; Bialek, 1987; Field et. al., 2005; Hudspeth, 1997; Nobili et. al., 1998). For example, brains of some fish are sensitive to electric fields as low as 1 microV/cm (Bullock, 1977), whereas electro-receptors have been shown to be sensitive to voltage gradients on the order of 10 nV/cm (Kalmijn, 1982).

In addition to their quantum-level sensitivity to external stimuli, Engel et al. (2007) has obtained direct evidence that remarkably long-lived electronic quantum coherence in energy transfer processes within photosynthetic systems is occurring, resulting in the complexes to sample vast areas of phase space to find the most efficient path. Non-locality also is suspect in protein folding (Klein-Seetharaman et. al., 2002).

Other quantum (or "quantum like") effects have been discovered in vision (e.g. Kim et al., 2001; Prokhorenko et al., 2006), QM tunneling of electrons (e.g. Berlin et. al., 2004; Stuchebrukhov, 2003); molecular and chemical bond processes (e.g. Matsuno, 1999, 2001); as well as hypothesized in the brain (e.g. Hammeroff et. al., 2002; Jibu et. al., 1994; Mershin et. al., 2004).

A theory has been proposed for the allometric scaling relations within biological organisms through the quantum nature of energy transfer in electron flow and proton translocation (Demetrius, 2003). Quantum coherence has even been shown to persist within living cells, despite the seemingly "noisy" and "chaotic" cellular environment at room temperature, as quantum spins from biochemical radical pairs have been seen to retain their correlation within the cytoplasm, even after they become separated (Walleczek, 1995). Moreover, squeezed quantum states of light have been observed within biological systems (e.g. Popp, 2002). Finally, it is possible to develop a QM circuit description of voltage fluctuation within neural membranes (reducing to the Hodkin-Huxley equation macroscopically, e.g. Mitra and Roy, 2006).

3.3 Quantum Mechanics and the Brain

The issue of quantum processes in the brain has received a lot of interest. Neuronal decoherence processes have only been calculated while assuming that ions, such as K+, are believed to undergo quantum Brownian motion (e.g. Tegmark, 2000). Extremely short decoherence timescales of 10^-20 seconds, result. Such arguments though assume that the system in question is in thermal equilibrium with its environment, which is not typically the case for bio-molecular dynamics (e.g. Frohlich, 1986; Mesquita et. al., 2005; Porkony and Wu, 1998). Also, the ions themselves do not move freely within the ion-channel filter, but rather their states are pre-selected, leading to possible protection of quantum coherence within the ion channel for a time scale on the order of 10^-3 seconds at 300K, ~ time scale of ion-channel opening and closing (e.g. Bernroider and Roy, 2005). Entangled states of K+ ions and oxygen atoms within the channels are likely occurring.

More general, such new quantum ideas applicable to the fields of molecular cell biology and biophysics will have a profound impact in modeling and understanding the process of decoherence within neuro-molecular systems. Quantum coherence within neuro-molecular biological systems may indeed be applicable, for systems that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium with their environments.

It seems clear that a successful representation of neuro-molecular dynamics should include a rigorous understanding of complex, mixed quantum states of entanglement, far-from-equilibrium quantum thermodynamics with non-linear potential terms (i.e. due to strong 17 interaction with a heat bath, electron-phonon coupling, etc.), appropriately modeled water and bio-molecular environments, and perhaps should even include mesoscopic elements of quantum chaos which have been shown to enhance the stability of quantum computations (e.g. Prosen and Znidaric, 2001), as well as describe mathematical structures exhibited by inter-spike train intervals (e.g. Bershadskii et. al., 2003).

As a specific example of the applicability of quantum-like processes at mesoscale levels, and the operation of underlying principles, Roy and Kafatos (1999b) have examined the response and percept domains in the cerebellum and have built a convincing case that complementarity or quantum-like effects may be operating in brain processes. As such, complementarity may be applicable to neuroscience as well, or to conscious processes, to living structures in general. They do not, however, speculate about quantum processes themselves operating at specific brain sites. Rather, they assume that quantum-like processes deriving from deeper principles operate. The difference is important.

From a large series of experiments in cats and monkeys it was found that neurons with similar receptive field axis orientation are located on top of each other in discrete columns, while we have a continuous change of the receptive field axis orientation as we move into adjacent columns. Granlund (1999) discussed the possibility of implementation of filters in the visual cortex as related to the orientation selectivity of neurons. We can define the notion of distance between the "filters'' or the orientation selective neuronal clusters or columns, similar to the statistical distance between quantum preparations. The statistical distance is most easily understood in terms of photons and polarizing filters (Roy and Kafatos, 1999a), which illustrates our view that quantum formalism may be introduced for brain dynamics.

It is generally believed that the cerebellum's function is to help the brain to coordinate movements but the recent neurophysiological evidence challenges this theory. Apart from being considered a specialized control box, the cerebellum participates in many activities of the brain including cognition. Now the problem is to find out an integrating principle operative in the brain so as to describe both motor function and cognitive activities. Roy and Kafatos (1999) have proposed that a generalized complementarity principle can be thought of as operative as integrating principle in the cerebellum. More generally, we imagine a measurement process with a device that selects only one of the eigenstates of the observable A and rejects all others. This is what is meant by selective measurement in quantum mechanics. It is also called filtration because only one of the eigenstates filters through the process.

It must be emphasized that we are taking the idea of quantum filter at the conceptual level only for better understanding of the cerebellum function. We are not considering any quantum process that may or may not be operating in some regions of the cerebellum at least at the present state of our understanding of the brain function.

The motive of this work was to show that concepts like the principle of complementarity, non-locality, etc. may play an important role not only in quantum mechanics but also in other branches of science. It is clear from the above analysis that set of dynamical principles are necessary for the description of physical as well as cognitive activities. Indeed, a set of principles is necessary for the description of different levels of cognitive activities and consciousness.

In following the above discussion, perhaps we are not yet at the stage to describe life, mind or even begin to understand the underlying underpinnings of consciousness. Nevertheless, we may have to explore the foundational framework for all reality. We firmly believe that any such attempt, has to ultimately be mathematical, involving mathematics as the fundamental language of Nature . A mathematical framework, utilizing category theory, proposed by Kato and Struppa, is in fact appropriate to embody the principles established by Kafatos and Drãgãnescu. In a series of papers, Kato and Struppa (1999a; 1999b; 1999c; 1999d), developed a mathematical formalism, which was based on the theory of categories with Grothendieck topologies (Kato and Struppa, 1999a) to describe and interpret a general theory of consciousness.

Moving to more bold steps, the fundamental current description of physical reality may find a place in this general mathematical framework, and we can even explore the connections of perennial philosophies in these new terms. It should be noted that the category theory not only can describe the various levels of consciousness but even the activities of the neurons (Ehresmann and Vanbremeersch, 1987) a fact which may or may not be connected with the framework of awareness or consciousness. Therefore category theory may be a candidate formalism to be used at various levels of reality.

Because of its wide applicability, category theory can be further explored from our previous work (Drãgãnescu. and Kafatos, 2003). The relevance here is that quantum theory has revealed a much richer structure to reality and as such, any mathematical language that would have general applicability would have to first and foremost apply to quantum theory. Along the same line of thinking, the two vector quantum theory of Aharonov et al. (1964) has revealed an even richer (and as well elegant) structure and as such, a fundamental mathematical language should fit it and allow further developments to be developed.

In trying to understand where biology and consciousness fit vis-à-vis physics and physical theories in general, one may attempt to utilize the same universal language. Rather than pursuing different paths in trying to understand them, the different realities ought to be considered together, an undivided whole. It may be the case that we cannot explain life, mind and consciousness without knowing the nature of the underlying reality and this may necessitate exploring the foundational framework for this underlying reality (Kafatos and Drãgãnescu, 2003). Such an axiomatic approach may allow the question "is consciousness the deepest underlying foundational level of existence?" to be posed, which presently appears to be beyond the reach of science. Related questions such as "does the deepest existence possess the ingredients necessary for the emergence of life and mind as we know it?"; "how are energy, substance and information related to the principles of underlying reality?", etc., may be the deep questions that need to guide future development of science. Developments from quantum theory (Roy & Kafatos, 1999a; 2003) provide plausibility that certain principles apply to different fields of natural sciences and may be considered to hold universal validity. From the early quantum universe, it is likely that quantum-like effects are frozen into the structure of the universe and, therefore, pervasive at all scales in the universe. Complementarity, and non-locality are two principles that apply beyond quantum microphysical scales (Kafatos, 1998; 1999) and as such may be considered to be universal foundational principles applying at all scales. It follows that fundamental foundational principles should be applicable to other fields such as brain dynamics, ecosystems and planetary science (Drãgãnescu and Kafatos, 1999; Kafatos, 1999; Kafatos and Drãgãnescu, 2003). In the same way, one can search for analogous universal principles that hold in realms beyond physical and biological sciences. Let's ascertain the possibility that consciousness is the foundational substratum of the universe, principles developed in perennial philosophical systems should be even more universally applicable and cut across all levels of the cosmos, "internal" (e.g. individual mental and psychic, etc.) as well as "external" (e.g. collective unconscious, physical, etc). A possible prescription starting from the weak measurements in quantum theory of Aharonov et al. (1964), and the equivalent EEG and other measurements in brain dynamics, leading to increased levels of unification, and ultimately to a common mathematical formalism, is illustrated in Fig. 7. This should be viewed as one of many possible paths for unification.

Figure 7. An approach towards unification.

One may then sketch a possible new prescription for a unified "science", beyond even mathematical foundations, that will encompass ordinary natural science and extend it to be able to address the issue of consciousness. In this new prescription one would start from the whole and then study the parts, a reversal of the way that ordinary science proceeds. To assist in this approach, if we start from the premise that consciousness is the underlying foundation of the physical, mental, psychic and all possible realms, one needs to look at the systems of philosophy dealing with consciousness.

As such, universal statements of the different perennial philosophies, which are directly applicable to consciousness, from both the East and the West might be the starting point for a dialogue between hard sciences and philosophical systems (Kafatos and Kafatou, 1991). This dialogue is difficult but can be bridged (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000; Nadeau & Kafatos, 1999) leading towards a new science of unified knowledge. One can examine principles and statements found in schools of thought such as Vedanta (Swami Prabhavananda and Isherwood, 1975; Swami Vimuktananda, 2005) and Shaivism (Singh, 1979) to seek their "reflection" or analogy at the physical realm. Then one can look at the insights gained to seek new developments in the science of wholeness, which includes the physical world. This is certainly a reversal of the usual scientific method, here we start from the whole, from the general, from the universal, from the unlimited, and we end up going to the individual, the particular, the limited. Two monistic perennial Indian philosophical systems, Kashmir Shaivism and Shankaracharya’s Vedanta provide complete systems on ultimate reality, or Absolute (Brahman in Vedanta; Paramashiva or Supreme Shiva in Shaivism), and its nature. Both accept the Absolute as the ultimate, underlying reality but with some important differences in emphasis: Vedanta emphasizes that Brahman is the only reality and the universe is illusory; while Shaivism accepts the universe as real in the sense that it is part, albeit the physical and mental parts, of the great underlying sea of Consciousness. Shaivism accepts a static (Sat) aspect and a dynamic (Chit or Shakti) aspect of Consciousness, whose' nature is Bliss (Ananda). These are all aspects of the One, undivided sea of Consciousness (samvit) which is a dynamic (spanda), creative and intelligent Reality. Reality is then identical to Consciousness. In its practical aspects, Shaivism also holds the view that everything is still part of the fundamental Reality which continuously undergoes creative process in the unfoldment of the universe from the levels of Paramashiva, to the first movement towards differentiation (Shiva-Shakti) all the way down to the creation of the physical universe.

Inherent in these steps is the continuously unfolding object-subject division which "projects" ultimate Reality onto levels of increasingly grosser and grosser experience. As such, Shaivism provides some profound insights to the mysterious problem of subjective experience and parallels the ideas expounded here on generalized principle of complementarity.

To recapitulate, in attempting to understand the connection of the large scale realm (namely the universe, presumably starting in a big bang) to the realm of biology and biosphere, the connection to the realm of microscale or microphysics (particles, atoms, molecules, on which all life and the universe itself and all it contains are composed of), the issue of a common framework to ground different scales and endeavors is a central challenge. The problem is clearly compounded when one brings in the issue of consciousness, whatever one’s beliefs on the subject might be, as not only the field of consciousness is vast and rapidly expanding, it is also subject to many different schools of thought. Interdisciplinary approaches combining philosophical and scientific views, utilizing intuition (Kak, 2003) may point to the direction that science needs to be changed, perhaps seriously taking into account what monistic perennial philosophies hold. It has been proposed that future integrative science will contain elements of perennial philosophies, perhaps adopting the fundamental view of monism. The present work has presented a synthesis, following ideas published before by the author and his co-workers in numerous publications. Although in these ideas by themselves, much of what we are saying here has appeared before, the brief synthesis presented here gives the vision of future attempts to integrate these ideas into a coherent whole. As such, the present treatise can be considered to be forging the way forward in a bold attempt to "see over the horizon" future that awaits science and, we believe, humanity’s understanding of itself and its role in the cosmos. This has become even more imperative as we are now collectively facing great challenges in the survival of modern societies and perhaps even the Earth’s biosphere as it presently is. Perhaps we need to be armed with new understanding and tools, dating to the dawn of civilization, as to who we really are and what science we need in order to evolve collectively and consciously. This is certainly not a minor task but nevertheless an imperative task .