Wheeler’s Participatory Universe vs. Berkeley’s Idealism: Observation and Reality

The idea that observation plays a fundamental role in shaping reality is not new. The 20th-century physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed a "Participatory Universe," suggesting that observers are essential to bringing reality into existence. Meanwhile, the 18th-century philosopher George Berkeley argued for a form of idealism in which reality is nothing but perception—everything exists only insofar as it is perceived by a mind. While these views share an emphasis on observation, they differ significantly in their ontological commitments and implications.

1. Observation as Reality’s Foundation

Wheeler’s participatory universe builds on quantum mechanics, particularly the idea that measurement collapses the wave function, determining the state of a quantum system. He extended this logic to the cosmos itself, suggesting that the past and present are not independent of future acts of measurement. In his famous "it from bit" dictum, Wheeler suggested that all physical reality emerges from informational choices—interactions that require an observer to bring them into actuality.

Berkeley’s idealism, on the other hand, asserts that matter has no independent existence outside of perception. His well-known phrase esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived) argues that the persistence of objects depends on being perceived by a mind—either human minds or the omnipresent mind of God. Unlike Wheeler, Berkeley did not deal with quantum mechanics but instead sought to solve philosophical problems about the nature of existence and perception.

2. Who or What Observes?

A key distinction between Wheeler and Berkeley is the nature of the observer. In Wheeler’s view, the observer is any entity that participates in measurement—potentially including conscious beings but not necessarily requiring them. Quantum measuring devices, for instance, count as observers in some interpretations, though the ultimate role of consciousness remains debated.

For Berkeley, only minds can perceive and thus instantiate reality. He invokes God as the ultimate perceiver who ensures the continuity of existence even when human observers are absent. This prevents his philosophy from collapsing into solipsism—without a divine observer, unperceived objects would simply cease to exist.

3. The Role of Meaning and Interpretation

Wheeler’s universe is fundamentally informational—it is about choices, interactions, and participation in an evolving cosmos. Berkeley’s idealism is fundamentally about meaning—what it means for something to exist is tied to perception and cognition. The two views diverge in their conceptual framework: Wheeler remains within a physicalist, albeit radical, interpretation of reality, while Berkeley constructs a purely mentalist ontology.

Our own model aligns more closely with Wheeler in recognising the relational nature of space, time, and measurement. However, we reject the idea that measurement alone collapses potential into instance—meaning makers are necessary for this process. In contrast to Berkeley, we do not require divine perception to sustain reality; rather, we recognise that when physicists describe unobserved events, they are projecting the meanings that would be construed if an observer were present. This maintains an epistemological humility while acknowledging the fundamental role of meaning in the construction of reality.

Conclusion

Both Wheeler and Berkeley radically rethink the role of observation in shaping the world. Wheeler’s participatory universe ties reality to quantum measurement and information theory, whereas Berkeley grounds reality in perception and divine awareness. Our model navigates between these extremes, arguing that reality is the meaning construed from experience, and that imagined observations are simply projections of what an observer would construe if present.

In this sense, Wheeler’s participatory universe is a step toward acknowledging the semiotic nature of reality—but it stops short of recognising that meaning makers, rather than measurement alone, are the true instantiators of the world.