In the first part of this book, we completed a thrilling "cognitive deep dive." We emerged from the waves of the quantum world bearing a revolutionary discovery: the universe we live in is not a pre-written script, but an improvisation co-created by countless "observers" in every present moment. We learned that the essence of reality is fluid "possibility," and that "observation" is the creative force that "collapses" it into "certainty." Finally, we saw that the relationship between "subject" and "object" is not one of separation, but an intimate cosmic duet.
Now, armed with this new "worldview navigation system," we formally enter the second part of this book: "The World We Build Together." In this part, we shift our focus from the microscopic, instantaneous question of "how reality is created" to the broader issue of "how the shared macro-reality is constructed and maintained in its stability."
The first question we will explore is perhaps the very first and most intense doubt that arises in anyone confronted with the idea that "observation creates reality": If reality is created by observation, why does it appear so solid, so stable, even so stubborn? Why does the table before my eyes not suddenly turn into a jellyfish or simply vanish when I blink or change my mood while looking at it? Why do we all live in the same world, governed by the same physical laws?
The answer to this question, as foreshadowed in earlier chapters, can be summed up in two words: the "Great Consensus."
The shared world we experience is like a magnificent building. Its foundation is the "physical consensus" reached by the most fundamental particles of the universe; its framework is the "biological consensus" shaped by billions of years of evolution; and its interior decoration and social rules are the "cultural consensus" collectively created by us humans. The table is stable because countless layers, countless numbers of "observers" -- across the entire spectrum from atoms to humans -- are continuously "agreeing" and "confirming" its existence with overwhelming "votes."
In this chapter, we will become architectural surveyors of this "Consensus Edifice." We will dissect its structure layer by layer and understand the principles of its construction.
First, we will delve into its most solid foundation, exploring how the seemingly ironclad physical laws -- from Newton's apple to Einstein's elevator -- can be understood as a profound and enduring "rulebook" consensus.
Next, we will ascend to the main structure of the edifice and witness the magic of language. We will discover that every word we use daily is a delicate "scalpel of reality," helping us "cut" and "anchor" the chaotic stream of perception.
Then, we will wander through the halls of the edifice, feeling the unique atmosphere created by those "invisible observers" -- culture, tradition, and tacit understanding -- and understand how they shape our experience of reality in unseen ways.
Finally, we will stand at the windows of the edifice and reflect on the shelter and limitations it provides. We will be wary of the trap of "common sense," recognizing that the "facts" we take for granted are sometimes nothing more than solidified "observational consensus" that prevents us from seeing more possibilities.
Get ready. Let us step into this magnificent building built by us together, the one called "reality."
From Newton's Apple to Einstein's Elevator: Physical Laws as the Rulebook of Consensus
We usually think of physical laws as the "hardware" of the universe -- eternal, unchanging iron rules etched into the fabric of spacetime. They are objects of discovery, not subjects of debate. Newton did not "invent" gravity; he merely revealed it. This view is deeply entrenched and forms the cornerstone of the scientific worldview.
However, within our new framework of the "participatory universe," we can offer a more subtle and dynamic understanding of physical laws. We are not here to deny the objectivity and validity of physical laws, but to inquire into the deeper source of this "objectivity" and "validity."
Physical laws can be seen as the deepest, broadest, and most enduring "observational consensus" in the universe -- a "rulebook" jointly "signed" and strictly observed by the universe's most fundamental "citizens" (elementary particles and fields).
Let us use the ideas of two giants in the history of science to understand how this "consensus" is "read" and "interpreted."
Newton's Apple: The "Greatest Common Divisor" Consensus of the Macro World
The story is well known: Newton sat under an apple tree, an apple fell, struck (or did not strike) his head, and sparked his thoughts on universal gravitation.
What "observational consensus" was involved in this classic scene?
The "Gravitational Consensus" Between Apple and Earth
Every particle comprising the apple and every particle comprising the Earth are continuously exchanging information through the gravitational field. This is a form of "mutual observation" that spans immense distances, incredibly weak yet omnipresent. Because the number of particles in the Earth is so overwhelming, this "observational vote" initiated by the Earth is decisive. It "informs" the apple: "You should move toward my center of mass." This massive, bottom-up "consensus" is the source of the phenomenon we experience macroscopically as "gravity."
The "Structural Consensus" Within the Apple
An apple is an apple, not a diffuse "apple-flavored probability cloud," because the molecules that constitute it have reached a strong "structural consensus" through electromagnetic forces. The carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other atoms collectively "agree" to combine in a specific organic macromolecular form and maintain that structure. This "internal consensus" gives the apple its definite shape, mass, and wholeness.
Newton's "Cognitive Consensus"
Now, it is Newton's turn to act as the advanced observer. His brain, inheriting an "embodied consensus" shaped by billions of years of biological evolution, naturally operates within a world model of three-dimensional space, linear time, and classical causality. When he "observes" the event of the apple falling, he is using a preset set of "cognitive tools" to "collapse" and "interpret" it.
More importantly, Newton also possessed a powerful "mathematical and logical" observational tool, beyond that of ordinary people. He began to wonder: Is the "force" that makes the apple fall the same force that makes the Moon orbit the Earth?
This was a revolutionary "question." This question was like an advanced "search query" sent to the "ground of possibility": "Please manifest for me the simplest mathematical rule that can unify the two phenomena of 'the apple falling on Earth' and 'the Moon orbiting the heavens'."
In response to this profound "observation," the "ground of possibility" collapsed into the elegant and powerful answer we all know: F = G (m₁m₂) / r².
This is Newton's law of universal gravitation. It was not something Newton "invented" out of thin air, nor a cold "truth" that lay "hidden" waiting to be discovered. It was a successful "dialogue" and "resonance" between Newton, an advanced observer, and the vast sea of "particle observational consensus" at the universe's foundation. Newton, using the elegant "language" of mathematics, successfully "translated" and "summarized" the universally observed "code of conduct" of the "citizens" in the macroscopic, low-velocity world.
Therefore, Newton's laws are so reliable in our daily lives because they perfectly correspond to the overwhelming "observational chorus" of gravity and electromagnetism at our macroscopic scale. They are the first chapter of the "player's rulebook" for this version of reality.
Einstein's Elevator: The Deeper "Spacetime Geometry Consensus"
Time fast-forwarded two hundred years. The edifice of physics, built upon Newton's foundation, was growing ever higher, but cracks had begun to appear. Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism seemed to conflict with Newton's absolute view of space and time.
Then came Einstein, a new architect armed with even more powerful "observational tools." He conducted a series of famous "thought experiments," one of which involved an accelerating elevator with no windows, adrift in space.
Einstein imagined that the person inside the elevator would feel a downward "force" pressing them to the floor, exactly as they would feel standing on Earth. If they released a small ball, the ball would "fall" to the floor. They would be unable to perform any experiment to distinguish whether they were in an accelerating elevator or in a gravitational field.
This thought experiment on the "equivalence principle" was a question Einstein posed to the universe, one even more profound than Newton's: "Is gravity really a 'force'? Or is it, like accelerated motion, a manifestation of some deeper structure of reality?"
This question touched upon a level more fundamental than "interactions between particles." It was inquiring into the very nature of the stage itself -- "spacetime."
In response, an even more elegant and revolutionary "consensus" was revealed. Einstein realized that gravity is not a force propagating through flat spacetime, but a dynamic interplay in which matter and energy "inform" spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime "informs" matter and energy how to move.
This is a more foundational "consensus" about the geometric structure of the universe. It is as if all the "citizens" of the universe have not only agreed on certain rules of conduct (laws of force) but have also collectively "agreed" on the "architectural plan" of the "city" (spacetime) they inhabit. This "plan" stipulates that wherever there is a large "building" (mass/energy), the "streets" (spacetime) must bend accordingly. And all citizens must follow the shortest path (geodesic) along these curved streets.
General relativity is Einstein's successful "translation" of this cosmic "spacetime geometry consensus" using the more advanced mathematical "language" of tensor analysis. It incorporates Newton's laws as a "special case" or "approximate interpretation" under conditions of low velocity and weak gravity.
The leap from Newton to Einstein perfectly demonstrates the dynamic nature of "physical laws as consensus":
Consensus is layered. There are consensuses at different depths. Einstein touched upon a deeper "spacetime consensus" than Newton.
The interpretation of consensus evolves. As our "observational tools" (theories, mathematics, experiments) advance, we can produce increasingly accurate and broader "translations" and "interpretations" of the same underlying cosmic consensus. Our "rulebook" is constantly being revised and supplemented.
So, back to the original question: Why will your table not disappear?
Because every particle that makes up the table, your body, and the surrounding environment steadfastly obeys that "foundational consensus" on electromagnetism and gravity, reached at the dawn of the Big Bang. They collectively "vote" to maintain the structural stability of the table and its fixed position in Earth's gravitational field. The power of this consensus is so immense that it forms the most solid "foundation" of our version of reality. Any attempt to unilaterally violate this "rulebook" (for example, trying to make the table vanish into thin air) is ineffective.
Physical laws are the greatest "silent consensus" that allows our world to exist.
The Magic of Language: How We "Cut" and "Anchor" Reality with Words
If physical laws are the foundation of the "Consensus Edifice," then language is the scaffolding and cement that builds its main framework. It is a powerful "reality-shaping tool," situated between "hardware rules" and "subjective experience."
Before we speak or write, what confronts us is a continuous, chaotic stream of perception. The information of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell, along with our inner emotions and thoughts, cascades over our consciousness like an untamed waterfall.
Language is the sophisticated "reality-cutting and anchoring system" we inherit from our ancestors. Its magic lies in its ability to slice this chaotic "river of perception" into discrete, nameable "conceptual islands," using each "word" as an "anchor" to fix these islands firmly on our shared cognitive map.
Cutting: From the "Spectrum" to "Colors"
Imagine the light spectrum. Physically, it is a continuum of wavelengths from red to violet. On this spectrum, there are no natural, clear-cut "boundaries." The transition from "red" to "orange," from "green" to "blue," is all smooth and gradual.
Yet, when we use language to describe it, a miracle occurs. With the discrete words "red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet," we forcibly carve out seven "national borders" on this continuous spectrum. We "create" seven independent "color concepts."
This act of "cutting" profoundly influences our perception. Studies have shown that cultural groups with different color vocabulary systems differ in their ability to discriminate and remember colors. For instance, in some cultures, "blue" and "green" are the same word, and people in that culture may be slower than us at distinguishing certain shades of blue and green.
Language is like a "conceptual carving knife," etching discrete lines on the continuous canvas of our perception. From then on, we no longer see pure, fluid physical stimuli, but rather individually named "units of reality" that have been "pre-processed" and "packaged" by our linguistic system.
Anchoring: From "Object" to "Table"
Look at the table before you. In purely visual perception, you are simply receiving a mosaic of photons of different colors, shapes, and textures. There is no label saying "table" attached to that object.
The word "table" is like a powerful "anchor of meaning." It forcibly "bundles" and "anchors" together this heap of originally unrelated perceptual data (four legs, a flat surface, wood grain, the function for placing objects) into a stable, recognizable, and communicable concept.
Once this "anchor" is dropped, it becomes very difficult to "see" that raw pile of perceptual data again. What you "see" is directly a "table." This word becomes a powerful "observational filter," automatically performing "pattern recognition" and "meaning collapse" for you.
This process of "anchoring" is the foundation for constructing our shared social reality. When we say, "Let's go sit at that table over there," we can coordinate smoothly because we are all invoking the same "conceptual consensus" about "table" in our minds. With language, we build a bridge to a shared reality between our consciousnesses.
Creation: From "Nothing" to "Something"
Language's most wondrous power lies not only in its ability to cut and anchor "existing" perceptions, but also to "create something from nothing" -- to bring forth "realities" that do not exist in the purely physical world.
Consider words like "rights," "justice," "love," "nation," "corporation."
You cannot find a physical object called "rights" in the world. You cannot measure the mass or electric charge of "justice" with any instrument. These concepts are "symbolic realities" constructed purely by language and collective belief.
Yet, their power is no less than that of physical laws. A nation's "sovereignty" (a symbolic consensus) can mobilize millions of soldiers and create real borders. A company's "contract" (a symbolic consensus) can direct trillions in capital. A declaration of "I love you" (a symbolic consensus) can profoundly alter the course of two people's lives.
These "symbolic realities" are the unique "observational consensus" of the human species. Through language, we collectively "agree" to believe in the reality of these abstract concepts and bestow power upon them. We live in a world interwoven by "physical consensus" and "symbolic consensus." The latter, to a great extent, determines our joys, sorrows, and destinies as social animals.
Language, as a collective observational tool, is both a gift and a prison.
The gift is that it vastly improves our efficiency in processing information and cooperating. It allows us to pass down knowledge, build civilization, and create grand projects far beyond the capacity of any individual.
The prison is that we are easily trapped by the "word-anchors" we ourselves have created. We often forget that words are merely the "map" of reality, not reality itself. We mistake the borders on the "map" for natural chasms in the "territory." With binary words like "good" and "bad," "success" and "failure," "us" and "them," we cut and distort the seamless, continuous, and complex reality, generating countless conflicts and suffering.
Your table will not disappear not only because of physical consensus, but also because the linguistic consensus of "table" is firmly "anchored" in your brain and your culture. To make it "disappear," you would first need to dismantle this deeply entrenched "conceptual anchor" -- which is far more difficult than overcoming gravity.
Culture, Tradition, and Tacit Understanding: The Invisible Observers
If language is the cement for building the "Consensus Edifice," then culture, tradition, and tacit understanding are the invisible architects and designers permeating the air within that edifice. They are not as hard as physical laws, nor as codified as language, but they shape our reality in a more subtle and pervasive way.
They are the silent, collective "observers," continuously "collapsing" the "ground of possibility" in specific directions through the behaviors and beliefs of generation after generation.
Culture: A Vast "Reality Filter"
Every culture is a unique "reality observation and operating system." It provides those who live within it with a full set of default answers about "what the world is," "what is important," and "how we should live."
Shaping the perception of time. In Western industrial societies, time is typically seen as a linear, quantifiable, and divisible "resource." The maxim "time is money" embodies this "cultural observational consensus." It guides people to "collapse" their life possibilities in an efficient, goal-oriented manner. In many Eastern or indigenous cultures, time may be perceived as a cyclical, organic flow in sync with natural rhythms. This consensus, in turn, guides people to "collapse" a reality of life that is more present-focused, harmonious, and aligned with nature.
Shaping the view of the individual and the collective. In cultures that emphasize individualism, the "self" is seen as the fundamental unit of reality. Individual rights, freedom, and achievement are the highest values. This "observational consensus" encourages people to create a social reality full of competition, innovation, and individual expression. In cultures that emphasize collectivism, the "family," "community," or "nation" is seen as the more fundamental unit. Harmony, responsibility, and collective honor are higher values. This consensus, in turn, shapes a social reality that prioritizes cooperation, stability, and interpersonal relationships.
Culture is like an invisible pair of "tinted glasses" we wear from birth. It filters out possibilities that are "incompatible" with it, while amplifying and reinforcing versions of reality that "align" with it. We are often unaware of these glasses and mistakenly believe that what we see is the one and only true color of the world.
Tradition: Historical "Inertial Observation"
Tradition is solidified, generation-to-generation "cultural observation patterns." It is like a "path of reality" worn smooth by countless predecessors treading the same route.
Weddings, funerals, festivals... These traditional rituals are powerful "collective observation events." In these rituals, all members of a community focus their attention on a specific symbol or narrative, collectively "confirming" and "reinforcing" certain core social consensuses (such as the sanctity of marriage, remembrance of the departed, and community cohesion) through repetitive actions.
These rituals are like regularly held "collective editing and locking" sessions for a "core entry" on the "cosmic Wikipedia," to prevent it from being arbitrarily altered.
The power of tradition lies in its "inertia." When we walk the old path of tradition, we are drawing on the "consensus potential" accumulated by countless "observers" throughout history. This makes us feel safe, certain, and deeply connected to our community.
However, the "inertia" of tradition can also become "lethargy." When the external environment (the distribution of the "ground of possibility") has already changed, a community that stubbornly clings to old "observational paths" may miss new opportunities for development, even leading to the ossification and collapse of the entire system.
Tacit Understanding: Interpersonal "Micro-Consensus"
If we compare culture and tradition to a city's "main roads" and "traffic rules," then tacit understanding is the unspoken paths and secret signals that exist between friends, family members, and partners.
When you exchange a glance with an old friend and immediately understand what the other is thinking, you have achieved an efficient "tacit observation." You are drawing on a shared "micro-consensus field" built up through countless past interactions.
This "consensus field" can greatly "compress" communication costs, creating a profound sense of intimacy and belonging. It allows your interaction to transcend the clumsiness of language and reach the core of meaning.
The essence of a good interpersonal relationship is the continuous process of generating and maintaining a positive "tacit consensus." The breakdown of a relationship often begins with the dissolution of this "consensus field." When misunderstandings, suspicions, and different "versions of reality interpretation" emerge without timely communication and repair, the once-shared world begins to split into two increasingly distant "parallel universes."
Culture, tradition, and tacit understanding -- those "invisible observers" -- together weave the fine texture of our social reality. They are not as coercive as physical laws, but through emotion, belonging, and identification, they guide us, in a way "as gentle as rain," to "see" and "create" a world recognized by the collective.
Your table will also not disappear because, within your culture, traditions, and daily tacit understanding, a "table that vanishes into thin air" is an unapproved, "abnormal" observational outcome. If you were to report such an event one day, you would likely receive, not a new discovery in physics, but a diagnosis from a psychiatrist. Such is the powerful corrective and stabilizing force of "social consensus."
The Trap of "Common Sense": Solidified Observational Consensus
At this point, we have surveyed the three main layers of the "Consensus Edifice": the physical, the linguistic, and the cultural. The great consensuses at all these levels ultimately settle to form the navigation system we rely on most in daily life, the one we use without a second thought -- "common sense."
Common sense is composed of those "observational consensuses" that have been internalized to the extreme and are running on autopilot. It tells us: fire is hot, water is wet, stone is hard; be polite in social interactions; hard work brings rewards...
Common sense is a necessary tool for surviving efficiently in a complex world. It is like the brain's "autopilot mode," freeing us from having to recalculate and reassess the most basic rules of reality at every moment. It liberates our precious attentional resources from "basic survival," allowing us to engage in higher-order creative activities.
However, this "Consensus Edifice" that shelters us can, while providing stability and security, also become a "mental prison" in which we imprison ourselves. The trap of "common sense" lies in its leading us to mistake the "habitual" for the "self-evident," and the "highly probable" for the "only possible."
The "Common Sense" of a Flat Earth
For most of human history, "the Earth is flat" was an indisputable "common sense." This "consensus" was built upon the most direct daily "observation" -- as far as the eye could see, the land did appear flat. Everyone lived, sailed, and farmed under this "consensus."
This "common sense" was perfectly adequate and effective for small-scale daily life. But it also acted as a huge "observational barrier," preventing people from imagining the possibility of a spherical Earth moving freely through the cosmos. Those who dared to challenge this "common sense" (like Magellan and Copernicus) were initially regarded as madmen or heretics.
It was not until we developed more advanced "observational tools" (astronomical observation, mathematical deduction, circumnavigation) that we were able to break through this "solidified observational consensus" and upgrade our "map of reality" to a more accurate and expansive version.
The "Common Sense" of "Men Go Out to Work, Women Stay Home"
In many past agricultural and early industrial societies, "men go out to work, women stay home" was a powerful "social common sense." This "consensus" was built upon the modes of production, physiological differences, and long-established cultural traditions of the time.
It provided society with a stable and efficient model of gender division. At the same time, however, it greatly "converged" the "possibilities" for both men and women. It limited women's opportunities to contribute in the public sphere and suppressed men's right to express tender emotions and participate in family life.
With the development of productive forces and the advancement of human rights concepts (the emergence of new "observational frameworks"), this once-unquestioned "common sense" began to be challenged. More and more people began to "observe" and "create" more diverse gender roles and family models that did not fit the old framework. This "consensus war" over "gender common sense" continues to rage to this day.
The "Common Sense" of "I'm Just That Kind of Person"
Perhaps the greatest trap of all is the "common sense" we construct about ourselves.
Each of us has a "self-narrative" about "who I am." This narrative is an "observational consensus" co-constructed from our past experiences, the evaluations of others, and our own judgments about our abilities. For example: "I am an introvert," "I am bad at math," "I have a bad temper," "I always meet the wrong kind of people"...
These "self-labels," once repeatedly "observed" and "confirmed," become a powerful form of "self-common sense." They act like an automatic program, guiding us to "see" evidence that fits the label and automatically filtering out evidence that does not.
A person who believes they are "introverted" may, in social situations, focus more on their own nervousness and awkwardness (selective observation), thus behaving more withdrawn, which further "confirms" their label of being "introverted" (a self-fulfilling prophecy).
A student who believes they are "bad at math" may, when faced with a math problem, anticipate failure in advance, and thus fail to mobilize all their cognitive resources to solve it. The eventual outcome further reinforces their belief in being "bad at math."
We are trapped in the "consensus prison" about "who I am" that we have built with our own hands. We forget that this "I" is not a fixed "entity," but a fluid "process" full of possibilities. The "common-sense self" we have identified with is merely one "self-version" we have "selected" and repeatedly "reinforced" from among countless possible versions.
How to Escape the Trap of "Common Sense"?
The answer is to consciously become a "questioner of consensus" and an "observer of new possibilities."
This means we need to:
Stay curious. Dare to ask "why" and "really?" about those "common-sense" things we take for granted.
Introduce diverse perspectives. Actively seek out different cultures, different viewpoints, and different people, to see what a different picture the world presents within their "observational systems."
Conduct thought experiments. Like Einstein, dare to mentally work through "what if" scenarios that defy common sense.
Start small, create "micro-new consensus." Changing a macro social common sense may be difficult, but we can start by changing our own "self-common sense." Consciously "observe" and "collect" evidence that does not fit your old self-label, no matter how small. Through sustained, conscious "new observation," you can gradually dismantle the old consensus and "collapse" a freer and more expansive "new self" for yourself.
Our tables do not vanish into thin air because a great consensus supports them. This consensus is the bedrock of our stable existence in the universe, and it deserves our respect. But at the same time, we must remain vigilant, lest this great consensus become an excuse for us to stop exploring, stop creating, and stop growing.
For the most unique value we possess as human observers is precisely this: we are the voice in this cosmic chorus that alone can reflect on the "chorus itself," and dare to try to sing a "brand new melody."
In the next chapter, we will continue our exploration of the structure of the "shared world." We will challenge two "common-sense consensuses" more fundamental and more profound than the "table" -- time and space. Get ready, for we will discover that the river of time we once thought flowed in one direction may be a book that can be freely leafed through.