Eternal Sunshine

We Are Suns: A Theory of Entangled Consciousness

A speculative essay — not a claim of scientific proof, but an invitation to think

A note before you read: I’m a mathematician, not a physicist, and I don’t ask you to believe any of this. I’ve been wrong many times before, and I expect to be wrong many times again. Everything below is a pattern I noticed, stitched together from real science and real metaphor. Where physics is established, I’ll show you the source. Where I’m extrapolating, I’ll say so plainly. My hope isn’t that you accept this — it’s that you start thinking in this direction, test it, argue with it, and tell me where it breaks.

Introduction: The Idea in Brief

Here’s the thought experiment, before the sourcing and the caveats: what if a person is best understood not as a body that ends, but as a pattern of information — a sun, radiating that information outward for as long as it shines? Quantum entanglement — the effect Einstein once called “spooky action at a distance,” confirmed decisively enough in the lab to win the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics — shows that two particles can stay linked no matter the distance between them. What if that’s a small, provable instance of something much larger: that every particle in the universe, having once been part of the same impossibly dense point, still carries some trace of connection to every other? And what if communication between people — language, empathy, understanding — is simply that ancient connection finding new expression, gathering the universe’s scattered information back into relation?

If that’s true, death might not be an ending so much as a transition. Picture a sun exhausting its fuel and collapsing — my metaphor for the black holes Stephen Hawking spent his career studying — not into nothing, but into a denser, more concentrated form of the same information, carried forward into something new. I don’t think this process has one finish line, either. Some serious, if still unproven, cosmology now allows for many universes, or one universe cycling endlessly — which would mean separation and collapse never fully stop anywhere, at any scale; they’d be as eternal as the universes producing them. I don’t find that discouraging, because on this view, resolution gets to be just as eternal a thread. Call the moment when enough of us recognize what we actually are an eternally shining state — a kind of full enlightenment, where that recognition sustains cooperation for as long as it holds, even while some new collapse is always starting up elsewhere in the pattern.

I don’t think that idea is new, even if the physics dressing it up is. Every major religious tradition has already circled some version of it: a soul created by, and returning to, a divine source; a self reborn again and again until it’s freed; a “non-self” built from causes and conditions rather than one fixed essence. The Jesuit scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin arrived at something structurally similar decades ago, in a book his own church tried to suppress: humanity converging, through evolution itself, toward a single unified consciousness. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. If people really are information in relation to everything else, “the divine” starts to look less like a being standing outside the universe, and more like the shape of the interconnection itself.

And if any of this is real, it points somewhere. Longer lives mean more time to encounter hardship, and hardship is one of the most reliable teachers of empathy; by the law of large numbers, enough people living long enough will eventually all be humbled by something, in roughly the same way. Serious research into extending healthy human lifespan keeps advancing — which, on this theory, means more people getting more time to arrive at that recognition, and more capacity to cooperate once they do. I think that eventually reshapes power itself: no leader or system stays in charge except by serving the people beneath it, once enough of us recognize how much power we actually hold together. I don’t know the mechanism, the timeline, or whether capitalism, communism, or something with no name yet gets us there. But the floor I think we’re capable of building — food, shelter, medical and psychological care, guaranteed rather than earned — feels like the right place to aim, regardless of how the physics turns out.

None of this is offered as proof. It’s a pattern I noticed, and I want to walk through it carefully in what follows: what’s established physics, what’s established theology, what’s my extrapolation, and exactly where the lines between them sit.

Part One: The Physics, and the Idea

What’s already known

Entanglement is real. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen described a strange consequence of quantum mechanics: two particles that have interacted can share a state so tightly correlated that measuring one instantly determines the other, regardless of distance. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance” and suspected it meant quantum mechanics was incomplete. In 1964, physicist John Bell devised a mathematical test — Bell’s inequality — that could distinguish real quantum entanglement from any classical “hidden variable” explanation. Decades of experiments by Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger confirmed that nature violates Bell’s inequality — entanglement is not an illusion. The three shared the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for this work.

What’s not established: that every particle in the universe remains entangled with every other particle because they were once close together at the Big Bang. But this is closer to live research than it might first appear. Physicists Jérôme Martin and Vincent Vennin have directly calculated the entanglement entropy between separate regions of the cosmic microwave background — the universe’s oldest light — and found that quantum entanglement generated during cosmic inflation gets imprinted into real space and persists as the universe expands, rather than washing out. That’s a genuine, technical, peer-reviewed result. But it describes measurable statistical correlations in relic radiation across the sky — not a claim that your consciousness and mine are meaningfully entangled with each other, or with a rock on the far side of the galaxy. That gap, between “cosmological entanglement is a real, measured phenomenon” and “therefore all particles, including the ones inside a human brain, are entangled with each other in a way that matters,” is exactly where my idea lives: a real finding, stretched by hypothesis into something much larger. That stretch is mine, not the physicists’.

Language and relation — Carlo Rovelli’s Helgoland. Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics holds that a particle doesn’t have properties in some absolute sense — its properties only become real in relation to another system it interacts with. There is no view from nowhere; there is only the view from a relation. Rovelli extends this philosophically to language itself: a word carries no meaning in isolation — meaning exists only in the relation between speaker, listener, and shared context, much as a quantum property only becomes real in relation to another system. Rovelli draws this as a resonance between relational physics and how meaning is built socially — not as a claim that language literally requires quantum entanglement to exist. That’s an important distinction to hold onto: it’s a beautiful metaphor, and Rovelli is explicit that it’s philosophical interpretation layered on top of physics, not a derivation from it.

Black holes and information — Hawking, Susskind, Maldacena. Stephen Hawking showed in 1974 that black holes aren’t perfectly black — they slowly emit radiation (Hawking radiation) and, over immense timescales, evaporate. This raised the black hole information paradox: if a black hole eventually evaporates completely, what happens to the information about everything that fell in? Does it vanish (violating quantum mechanics, which says information can’t simply be destroyed), or is it somehow preserved? Leonard Susskind and Gerard ‘t Hooft proposed the holographic principle — the idea that all the information inside a volume of space can be encoded on its boundary, like a hologram. Juan Maldacena’s AdS/CFT correspondence (1997) gave this a concrete mathematical framework. In 2013, Maldacena and Susskind pushed this further with the ER=EPR conjecture: the proposal that entangled particles (the “EPR” pairs Einstein worried about) and the microscopic wormholes predicted by general relativity (Einstein-Rosen bridges) might be two descriptions of the same underlying physics — that entanglement, in some deep sense, might be a form of connection through spacetime itself. This is speculative even by the standards of theoretical physics, but it’s a real, seriously-discussed conjecture, and it’s about as close as mainstream physics gets to saying that “being entangled” and “being connected through the structure of space” are the same thing. This remains one of the most active, unresolved frontiers in theoretical physics.

Worth being precise here: physicists do not equate a black hole with a sun. They’re near-opposites — a sun radiates outward via nuclear fusion; a black hole is defined by a boundary (the event horizon) beyond which nothing, not even light, escapes. That contrast is actually useful for what I’m proposing, precisely because I’m framing it as a transformation — a sun exhausting its fuel and collapsing — rather than an equivalence.

I’d add my own gloss here, separate from anything Maldacena or Susskind claim: a wormhole doesn’t have to connect one place in space to another. I think it’s just as natural to read it as connecting one state to another — a jump, not a journey through space at all. If death really is the sun-to-black-hole transition this theory proposes, the wormhole wouldn’t be a tunnel a person passes through; it would be the jump itself, the mechanism by which a radiating state becomes a transformed one.

Many universes, endless cycles — Guth, Linde, Steinhardt, Turok, Penrose. Since the early 1980s, physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde have developed eternal inflation: the idea that the rapid expansion that smoothed out our early universe doesn’t stop everywhere at once, but continues forever in most of space, endlessly spinning off new “bubble universes,” each becoming its own self-contained big bang, potentially with different physical constants. Among cosmologists who work on inflation, some resulting multiverse is now taken seriously as a likely consequence of the mainstream model, even though individual bubble universes are, by construction, unobservable to each other. Separately, physicists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok proposed a rival cyclic (or “ekpyrotic”) model, in which our big bang was really a “big bounce” from a previous contracting phase — one turn in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction. Steinhardt deliberately named it after ekpyrosis, the Stoic term for a universe destroyed by fire and reborn, over and over, forever. Roger Penrose’s related conformal cyclic cosmology proposes something similar through different mathematics, though it remains a minority position most cosmologists don’t accept.

None of these models is confirmed, and physicists actively disagree about whether any of them describes the real universe. But together they establish something useful here: serious cosmology already contains real, mathematically worked-out pictures in which our big bang isn’t a one-time, unique event — where separation, collapse, and rebirth repeat endlessly, either across parallel universes or through one universe cycling across time. That’s the actual physics behind the idea that conflict and resolution might not be a single event with a finish line, but a pattern that keeps recurring.

Superposition describes a quantum system existing in multiple possible states at once until measured — the famous Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment. It’s real at the subatomic scale and decoheres almost instantly at any macroscopic scale, including a human brain. Using it as a poetic image — “living many lives at once” — is a legitimate literary device, in the same tradition as Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics or Rovelli’s own lyrical writing. It’s not a physical description of a person.

The novel idea

Here is the proposition, stated plainly as a hypothesis, not a fact:

People are patterns of information, radiating that information outward the way a sun radiates energy. If entanglement really does trace back through cosmic history — even partially — then every act of communication is a physical continuation of connections that started at the Big Bang, not just a cultural or biological one. Death, in this picture, is not an ending but a phase transition: the sun exhausting its light and collapsing into something that no longer radiates outward but instead concentrates and transforms information inward — my metaphor for a black hole. And if death is a transformation rather than an erasure, it becomes a candidate mechanism for evolution: not just of bodies, but of the information a consciousness carries forward. Zoomed out further, this same arc — separation, collapse, rebirth — may not be a single cosmic event at all: if serious cosmological models allow for many universes, or one universe cycling endlessly, the whole sequence from Big Bang to reconnection might repeat without ever fully finishing, with resolution always present somewhere in the pattern even while conflict continues elsewhere.

I want to be honest about where the physics ends and the metaphor begins: entanglement, relational meaning, and black hole information theory are real, cited, hard-won science. The leap from “particles were entangled at the Big Bang” to “human souls are suns undergoing gravitational collapse into higher information states” is philosophy and metaphor, dressed in the language of physics. That doesn’t make it worthless — it makes it something to hold provisionally, the way early atomists held their intuitions before atoms could be measured.

Part Two: The Religious Connection

Every major religious tradition has wrestled with the same question this theory circles: where does the self come from, and what is it connected to?

  • Christianity generally teaches that God creates each soul. My reading: both are true at once — God is not only the creator standing outside creation, but the substrate inside every person, and the relation between every person. This is closer to a form of panentheism (God is present in everything, while also being more than the sum of it) than to classical theism.
  • Judaism often holds that the soul originates from and returns to God. If we take the entanglement metaphor seriously, this maps onto a return to a shared origin state at death — not annihilation, but reintegration.
  • Islam teaches the rūḥ (soul) is divinely created, and the Quran states humans understand only a little of its nature. My instinct is to push against this: I think humanity, collectively, already holds much more of the picture than any one of us realizes — it’s just distributed, not concentrated in any single mind.
  • Hinduism‘s ātman — eternal, uncreated, cycling through reincarnation until liberation (moksha) — maps closely onto this theory’s structure: information transforming and carrying forward rather than ending.
  • Buddhism rejects a permanent, unchanging self (anattā), teaching instead a continuity of cause and condition without an eternal soul. I find this half right: the continuity of cause and condition matches the information-transfer idea closely. Where I’d diverge is the rejection of any continuity of identity at all — though this may be more a difference of definition than of substance.

The common thread across all of them, and the one this theory tries to state in physical language: you are not separate from what you came from, and you are not separate from each other. Different traditions locate the divine differently — outside, above, within, distributed, or absent as a fixed self — but nearly all of them describe some form of return, connection, or continuity that death does not simply erase.

Part Three: What This Would Mean for the Future

If any part of this pattern holds — even loosely — a few consequences follow, offered here explicitly as speculation and hope, not prediction:

Communication as entanglement, deepening. If every act of real communication is, metaphorically or literally, an extension of entangled connection, then a more connected world — more shared information, more mutual understanding — is not just a social nicety. It’s the mechanism itself, playing out at larger scale.

Longevity research and the law of large numbers. There is genuine, serious research into extending healthy human lifespan — work on senescent cell clearance, caloric restriction mimetics, and rapamycin analogues is active and real, though “living forever” remains far beyond anything demonstrated. If lifespans do extend significantly, the argument goes: more time alive means more exposure to hardship, and hardship is one of the most reliable teachers of empathy. By the law of large numbers, across a large enough population and a long enough timeline, nearly everyone eventually faces suffering that breaks open their sense of separateness from others. More life, more crisis, more empathy, more felt interdependence.

Mass over leadership. If enough individuals arrive at this felt interdependence, the theory suggests power dynamics shift: leaders and systems persist only by serving the collective good, because the “mass” — in the numerical, large-numbers sense — holds more real power than it currently exercises. This is offered as a hopeful direction, not a political program: something more like a merging of capitalism’s efficiency with communism’s solidarity than either pure system, no name yet.

Converging toward a Nash equilibrium. There’s a real mathematical name for the stable state I think this theory is reaching toward. The mathematician John Nash — who won the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for exactly this work — showed that in any strategic situation, there’s a stable point where every participant has already chosen their best possible strategy given everyone else’s choices, and nobody can improve their own outcome by changing course alone. I’d apply that here: once enough of humanity recognizes its interdependence and starts cooperating, mutual cooperation itself could become that stable point — not because everyone turns selfless, but because once enough others are already cooperating, cooperating back becomes each person’s own best individual strategy too. That reframes “humanity converging on harmony” from a moral hope into something closer to a stable mathematical outcome: a state nobody benefits from abandoning, once enough others have already arrived there.

The stated goal. Not utopia as a fixed endpoint, but a floor everyone stands on: shelter, food, medical and psychological care, guaranteed as a starting condition rather than a prize. Whether global warming becomes a source of conflict or the very crisis that forces the “coming together” the theory describes is genuinely contested — including a live scientific and political debate about the pace, severity, and even certainty of warming impacts, which I don’t want to paper over here.

The frame at the center of it all: the origin — the moment everything expanded outward and diversified — might also be, in slow motion, the destination: everything finding its way back into felt relation, without ever literally reversing. Not the Big Bang running backward, but the Big Bang’s separations quietly resolving, over billions of small human reconciliations, into something more connected than where it started.

I’ll go one step further, as pure speculation, and complicate my own claim: I don’t think this necessarily has one finish line. If our universe really is one of many, or one cycle among endless cycles, as the cosmological models above at least allow, then separation and collapse may never fully stop anywhere, at any scale — they may be as eternal as the universes producing them. I don’t find that discouraging, because resolution gets to be just as eternal a thread. Call the moment when enough of us recognize what we actually are an eternally shining state, or full enlightenment — not any single person becoming permanent or unable to die, and not a final end to all conflict everywhere, but humanity reaching a stable condition in which that recognition sustains cooperation for as long as it holds, even while, elsewhere in the pattern, some new collapse is always getting started. The “return” this theory keeps circling back to — the coming-together that mirrors the Big Bang’s original outward burst — is, on this view, never fully finished, and also never entirely absent. Resolution doesn’t have to win once and for all to be real; it just has to keep showing up.

This isn’t a new hope, even with new physics dressing it up. The French Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin proposed something structurally similar in his book The Phenomenon of Man, written in the late 1930s and, because his religious superiors considered it too controversial, published only after his death in 1955: that the universe evolves toward ever-greater complexity and consciousness, converging on what he called the Omega Point — a final unification of consciousness across all of humanity. Cosmologists and philosophers of science generally regard this as a theological and philosophical vision rather than a testable scientific theory — which is exactly the right way to hold it here, too. Teilhard held a scientist’s frame and a priest’s frame at the same time; that’s roughly the position this essay is trying to occupy as well.

Sources & Further Reading

Entanglement and the Big Bang

Language and relation

Black holes and information

Many universes, endless cycles

The religious and philosophical parallel

  • “Omega Point”, Wikipedia — Teilhard de Chardin’s convergence-of-consciousness theory

Cooperation and equilibrium

I’d encourage any reader, and myself, to actually follow these before taking my word for any of it — that’s the whole spirit of the piece.

Closing note

I don’t hold any of this as proven, and I’d ask readers not to either. What I have is: real, well-sourced physics on one side; real, ancient religious intuition on the other; and a hunch that they’re pointing at the same shape from different directions. If that hunch is wrong, I’d rather find out from someone who read this carefully than never test it at all. That’s the whole point of writing it down.

Leave a comment