# The Hard Problem of Accepting Physical Reality

**URL:** <https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-hard-problem-of-accepting-physical-reality/2989>\
**Category:** General Philosophy\
**Created:** [September 10, 2026, 4:34am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-hard-problem-of-accepting-physical-reality/2989 "2026-09-10T04:34:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 79

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\
**Post date:** [September 20, 2026, 4:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-hard-problem-of-accepting-physical-reality/2989/79 "2026-09-20T16:53:01Z")

</div>

Geoff, thank you for taking the time to share your comments, questions.

> [@Geoff\_Dann](#):
>
> You lost me at this point. No, atoms do not communicate, influence or co-operate with “other entities”.

> [@Citizenschallenge](#):
>
> These atoms are entities. This is based on observations that they communicate, influence, and cooperate with other entities. Of course it’s all on a quantum level. Awareness has nothing to do with it.
> 
> This is not “panpsychism,” nothing is imbued with anything — it simply is what it is. Things in their own right, taking up their own space, nothing more, nothing less

And yes, according the physicists they do “communication” to be mistaken with having a discussion.

> **[Surprising communication between atoms could improve quantum computing](https://www.physics.wisc.edu/2020/10/23/surprising-communication-between-atoms-could-improve-quantum-computing/)**
>
> A group of University of Wisconsin­–Madison physicists has identified conditions under which relatively distant atoms communicate with each other in ways that had previously only been seen in atoms closer together — a development that …

> [@Geoff\_Dann](#):
>
> Atoms posess zero capacity for either they are 100% not conscious and 100% not intelligent.

Where did I say that they were “conscious” or possess “intelligence”?? Those are concept you have just injected, and they do not relate to the essay’s wording.

> [@Geoff\_Dann](#):
>
> Your whole argument is based on this category mistake.

I think not. I admit this OP essay has issue and inconsistencies and gaps, which I think I did a good job of buttoning up in “[Take Two](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-hard-problem-of-appreciating-physical-reality-take-two/3138)” Although as it stands now that is still missing the essay’s “closure” which took another couple days to percolate to the surface of my thoughts. It’s sweet the way it came together, but life is crowded and the ending still needs some polishing before it’s ready for posting.

> [@Geoff\_Dann](#):
>
> The real problem is not that “philosophers can’t accept reality”, but that physicalists can’t accept reality, as you are demonstrating right now. _Nobody really believes that “atoms communicate”_.

I suggest you goggle that question:

> Actually, physicists and chemists use terms like **“atomic communication”** as a metaphor to describe **quantum entanglement** , **molecular signaling** , and **information transfer** in physics. While atoms do not have minds, conscious thoughts, or intent, they absolutely exchange information through fundamental forces.

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-hard-problem-of-accepting-physical-reality/2989)._