“Space-time is doomed.” --- Nima Arkani-Hamed, physicist, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. This admission from a world renowned physicist serves as a capstone to several years of studying physics. It is at once revelatory and liberating. Allow me to explain. Four years ago, I decided to do a deep dive into the nature of reality. In today’s world, one is led to believe that reality can only be explained by the laws of physics. Reference to disciplines beyond (in Greek “meta”) physics places one in the world of superstition, or God forbid, religion. Not having studied physics since high school, I leaped headlong into the world of video lectures, books and podcasts of which there are thousands in any area of study one wishes to pursue. I have been diligent and have come to understand particles, waves, fields, the Big Bang, the Standard Model, the elusive Theory of Everything, entanglement, the observation problem, Schrodinger’s Cat, Wigner’s Friend, special relativity, general relativity, Planck’s constant, Black Holes, anti De Sitter space, the holographic principle, Many Worlds, pilot waves, the irreconcilability of relativity and quantum mechanics, fundamental versus emergent---just to name a few concepts. Indeed, I went as deep into physics as a non-mathematician can go. Along the way, I came to realize how little physics tells us about reality. For example, the laws of physics deal with only 5% of the known Universe. Up to 75% of the Universe is comprised of Dark Energy. Another 20% is comprised of Dark Matter. The former is a placeholder name for the energy that fuels the continued expansion of the Universe, and the latter is a placeholder name for the mass that prevents celestial bodies from colliding with each other. Virtually nothing is known of either. Indeed, they may not be energy or matter at all. Moreover, what we do know of the remaining 5% is woefully incomplete. Take what physicists know about the Big Bang, the beginning of the Universe some 13.8 billion years ago when all of space and time arose from nothing. Don’t even think about asking a physicist what existed before the Big Bang or how the Big Bang came to be. If you were to ask the first question expect to be told that since time began after the Big Bang, temporal questions such as what existed “before” are silly and meaningless. As to who or what caused the Big Bang---expect crickets. Perhaps the biggest physics fail of the past 75 years is the inability of anyone to reconcile quantum physics and relativity (both explained below) the two overarching laws upon which all of modern physics is based. Literally billions of dollars and countless careers have been wasted pursuing such a reconciliation, a Theory of Everything--- one, beautiful equation describing that from which all else emerges. Truth be told, we are no further along in this quest than we are in finding the Holy Grail. And don’t forget, the “Everything” referenced represents only 5% of the Universe And then there is consciousness. Is it purely a function of the brain (albeit a very complex one) or is there some other source? Even the most ardent physicalists among physicists admit that consciousness is a “hard problem”. So, what IS the proper role of physics? To me, the answer lies in the words of the three greatest physicists of the past century: Niels Bohr, the godfather of quantum physics, Albert Einstein of relativity (space-time) fame and Max Planck who inspired both. Each understood that physics is a tool to harness nature, not the source of nature. Bohr said: “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.” Einstein wrote: “Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one.” Planck observed as follows: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” In short, when it came to describing reality (as opposed to our perception of it), these three giants were metaphysicians. (Metaphysics—the philosophical study of the nature of reality) So, why do 90% of physicists today reject the idea that metaphysics plays any role in describing reality? I believe the answer lies in the language they employ. The language of physics is mathematics. Today, if a theory cannot be expressed mathematically, it does not warrant consideration---full stop. This situation is discussed at length in Sabine Hassenfelder’s book “Lost in Math—How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.” Sadly, today’s physicists are not products of a liberal arts education. They are not philosophically sophisticated. Their predecessors were. For example, Schrodinger, who in 1925 derived the equation upon which quantum mechanics is based, was an ardent student of Eastern philosophy about which he wrote in his book “What is Life.” Addressing the many alternative outcomes inherent in the double split experiment, Schrodinger wrote: “There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent. In truth there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads.” Similarly, Heisenberg who in 1927 articulated the all-important uncertainty principle wrote: “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of inquiry…. The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” I now return to the significance of Nima’s admission that “Space-time is doomed.” As noted above, space-time is shorthand for Einstein’s theory of relativity. Relativity describes the interaction of matter from the size of an atom to the size of the Universe itself. It has proven useful time and time again (no pun intended). It guides our satellites, provides us GPS, and explains why apples fall from trees. It presumes that space is continuous and local. That is, it presumes that one can ascertain with precision an object’s location and velocity. Unfortunately, relativity simply does not work at the subatomic or quantum level. There, location and velocity cannot be ascertained with precision. Indeed, subatomic particles are in a superposition (many places at once). Thus, their location and velocity can only be expressed in probabilities. The quantum world is fuzzy and imprecise. That said, these very qualities have led to remarkable uses such as lasers and more importantly transistors and silicon chips. As noted above, to date no physicist has reconciled these two theories. This lack of a Theory of Everything is well known and often discussed. What isn’t often discussed in physics and what Nima’s admission addresses is that at very, very small distances and at very, very short time frames NEITHER relativity (space-time) nor quantum physics have any relevance. The mathematics describing each simply doesn’t work. And these were precisely the conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang during what is called the Planck Epoch. By definition, then, neither relativity nor quantum physics is fundamental. Both must have emerged from something else. They are not first principles and, as admitted by Nima, any attempt to prove them so is “doomed”. Given this and the fact that physicists are literally clueless as to how or from what space-time and quantum mechanics emerged, one is free to explore other possible foundations of reality even those grounded in metaphysics. Indeed, relying on physics to explain the nature of reality may be a waste of time---and space. And should one encounter any derision for so asserting, one need only point to the many limitations inherent in physics some of which I cataloged above. How revelatory! How liberating!