The orthodox interpretation of quantum theory treats the subject and the object on an equal footing. It has been suggested that the cyclical-time process, which resolves self-reference in consciousness, interconnects the observed universe and the mind of the subject. Based on the analogy between cryptography and language, the concept of the common innate structure of language, also known as universal grammar, may be associated with the continuity in consciousness. Extending this connection, Levi-Strauss's proposal on universal culture may be considered as a shared structure of continuity among the consciousness of multiple subjects.
The orthodox interpretation of quantum theory treats the subject and the object on an equal footing. It has been suggested that the cyclical-time process, which resolves self-reference in consciousness, interconnects the observed universe and the mind of the subject. Based on the analogy between cryptography and language, the concept of the common innate structure of language, also known as universal grammar, may be associated with the continuity in consciousness. Extending this connection, Levi-Strauss's proposal on universal culture may be considered as a shared structure of continuity among the consciousness of multiple subjects.
Universal grammar assumes the existence of an innate structure common to all human languages. As with secret keys shared by two parties in cryptography, the innateness of language may be related to the continuity of language that both parties share. In other words, discrete language alone cannot construct continuous semantics, which therefore implies the innateness of continuity as proposed in universal grammar. This is also seen in the unique capacity to communicate quantum information, which contains continuity, using discrete language. On the other hand, ever since the development of quantum theory, its probabilistic nature during the measurement process has been debated, particularly by using the phenomenon of entanglement and nonlocality. Since a number of practical applications of quantum theory have been introduced more recently, various techniques of manipulating entanglement have been examined. In particular, it has been noted that for a given chain of non-maximal correlations, there exists a class of coefficients such that entanglement swapping yields the optimal result, namely the weakest link in the chain. A numerical comparison between the general coefficients and the optimal non-maximal states in the case of four and five 2-level entanglement is also provided.
A number of philosophers and scientists have discussed the possibility of inseparability between the subject (i.e., the observer) and the object (i.e., the observed universe).In particular, it has recently been proposed that this inseparability may be obtained through the discrete physical universe being filled with the observer's continuous consciousness through quantum evolution with time going backwards.The proposal of a universe view with interwoven matter and mind through cyclical time bears a resemblance to Immanuel Kant's discussion of the Copernican Revolution in philosophy, where the priority shifted from the object to the subject.
This manuscript confronts a challenge embedded deeply within the structure of human language. We intend to describe a universe consisting entirely of dynamic, interconnected processes. However, our grammar compels us to speak constantly in terms of static things. This subject-predicate foundation forces us to reify processes into objects during description. Stating that an electron travels suggests a distinct entity separate from the traveling. What our models actually describe are stable, localized patterns of energetic oscillation. These patterns exist within a continuous, universal field rather than as isolated objects.
In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.
Knowing the mutual interconnection of everything with everything, it is no problem to interpret the interactions between the measuring and quantum systems as any other interactions between two or more systems consisting of elementary quantum dipoles. So, all relations between the measuring apparatus and measured quantum objects are only parts of the universal cosmic network of elementary quantum interactions creating the objective physical reality, independent of a human consciousness. But the observer, as a conscious subject, plays an active and creative role in his communication with the micro-world.
There are two languages in which we speak about what it means to be. The first is the language of physics. It speaks of wave functions and probability amplitudes, of coherence and decoherence, of superposition and collapse. It describes the world from outside — as an object to be measured, predicted, controlled. In this language, the brain is an electrochemical system, neurons are signal processors, and consciousness is either an emergent property or an illusion to be explained away. The second is the language of experience. It speaks of pain and joy, of fear and love, of the redness of red and the taste of morning coffee. It describes the world from inside — as something lived, felt, undergone. In this language, the brain is not experienced at all. What is experienced is: being here, in this moment, as this self. For four hundred years, since Descartes split mind from matter, we have assumed these languages describe different things. The physical and the mental. The objective and the subjective. The measurable and the ineffable. This book argues that assumption is wrong. The two languages describe the same thing. Not two things that mysteriously interact. Not two aspects that somehow correlate. The same thing — seen from different angles. This is not a metaphor. It is not an analogy. It is not a poetic gesture toward unity. It is a claim about the structure of reality.