Let’s keep this first implicit assumption of Science in mind. All is connected to all else in a coherent, systematic way. (Nicholas Maxwell discusses this view and its problems at length in his book From Knowledge to Wisdom, pp. 107–109.³)

However, and in the second place, we also now know that this universe is a kind of aware. Changes in one part of the universe produce changes in another, distant part—instantly. Like a school of hundreds of fish or a flock of thousands of birds turning as one, parts of the universe are connected in amazing ways.⁴ How the parts are connected is still a mystery to physicists, but that they are connected is no longer in doubt. And living things may take measurable microseconds of time to react, but a big point about sub-atomic particles is that they don't. Their action-reaction is instant.   

Particles in all corners of the universe are entangled. Quantum experiments have proved that such is the case as surely as Newton’s laws of motion have been shown to be accurate approximations of relativistic mechanics by generations of engineers. (Joshua Roebke describes this research in an article published in 2008.⁵)

Particles found in matched pairs in the subatomic world can be separated and steered apart as they travel. But if the spin of one of the two particles is reversed, its former partner—miles distant and unacted upon in any way—will undergo a complementary, mirror-image change of its own. And the signal by which the first tells the second to reverse its spin travels from one to the other instantly, which is a violation of Einstein’s relativity theory, and thus of all the models that predated the quantum theory. (Roebke summarizes this well.⁶)

Can we then call the coherent system of particles and forces that is the universe “self-aware”?

Here again, we must make a cognitive choice of which model to use as we interpret the most recent data from Physics. It is clear that, in light of all the evidence and reasoning currently available, belief in the quantum model appears to be our most rational choice.

But belief in this model further implies its corollary that the universe is a kind of aware. Or let’s take the leap and say conscious. This view too is a choice. So why would we choose to think, even provisionally, that the universe has awareness? There are at least four good reasons.

First, the evidence says so. If we touch a living entity in one part and we then detect a reaction in another part (a reaction that can be replicated and studied over and over), we describe that entity as being aware. Amoeba move away from strong light. As plant seeds germinate, they send a shoot upward, away from gravity, and a root downward, toward gravity. Higher organisms in which a stimulus occurring at one site produces a response somewhere else are assumed in Biology to have a controller of some sort between the two sites. All of these life forms are said to be, at some level, aware. The entanglement of particles in the universe fits this basic model of awareness.

Second, the choice to view the universe as being aware also makes more scientific sense than choosing the alternative view, that is, to see the universe as an unfeeling machine (as Laplace did). The idea of an aware universe enables us, at least in part, to account for findings in other branches of Science, like the synchronous behaviors found in schools of fish and flocks of birds, and the flashes in swarms of fireflies. 

Presently, how the individual animals in these collectives know what their fellows are about to do has defied explanation by the best modelling and experimentation being done in all branches of both Physics and Biology. But scientists continue to observe this kind of synchronous activity in collectives of many different organisms. It’s real.

   

                                         Synchronous behavior in flock of birds (credit: Wikipedia) 

Third, seeing the universe as an aware entity fosters in us an inclination to engage in a personal way with the moral conclusions that are implicit in our worldview. Everywhere, always, we are choosing. Thus, we must stand up for our values. Always. The universe is watching. Why does this matter? History has shown repeatedly that only a moral code that is heartfelt can handle the kinds of pressures tyrants bring to bear on citizens in their societies. Moral codes that are merely cerebral don’t motivate. Such morals can too easily be rationalized and pushed onto whatever path a tyrant desires. In Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, doctors, judges, even the scientists were co-opted by the tyrants. 

A worldview that sees the universe as aware reduces our human tendency to rationalize our way into moral laziness. A universe seen as being aware is one that is judging us every second.

We can't just do the expedient. We must try our best to do what is right. 

Finally, taking a larger, more global view, seeing the universe as quantum theory models it rather than as the Newtonian paradigm models it commits us to the concept of free will. If, as we flow into the future, there are many possible paths before us rather than only one that is inescapable, then by wisely chosen actions, we can influence the probabilities of which path we will land on. We have free will.

In other words, the quantum view feels like life the way we live it. I do hold people responsible for their actions. In fact, no one I know lives daily life as if the cars around them in traffic are particles driven by unchangeable forces toward inescapable outcomes. Cars contain drivers who are responsible human beings. If they aren’t, they shouldn’t be driving. If your car’s path crosses my car’s path, and I have to steer sharply left and almost swerve into a lane of oncoming traffic, I’m going to be mad at you, not your car. 

Similarly, I reject any moral code that excuses felons as being not responsible for their actions, and so does every other person I’ve ever met. Quantum theory fits how life feels. We have free will; we can be held responsible, to a fair degree, for the events in which we are involved.

Thus, it is rational to choose to see the universe as coherent and conscious. But are these two choices added together enough to justify a further choice to embark on a path toward a personal theism?