Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1411.3405 · Systems

Building the Observer into the System: Toward a Realistic Description of Human Interaction with the World

Chris Fields

Published Oct 28, 2016• 18 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Human beings do not observe the world from the outside, but rather are fully embedded in it. The sciences, however, often give the observer both a “god’s eye” perspective and substantial a priori knowledge. Motivated by W. Ross Ashby’s statement, “the theory of the Black Box is merely the theory of real objects or systems, when close attention is given to the question, relating object and observer, about what information comes from the object, and how it is obtained” (Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956, p. 110), I develop here an alternate picture of the world as a black box to which the observer is coupled. Within this framework I prove purely-classical analogs of the “no-go” theorems of quantum theory. Focussing on the question of identifying macroscopic objects, such as laboratory apparatus or even other observers, I show that the standard quantum formalism of superposition is required to adequately represent the classical information that an observer can obtain. I relate these results to supporting considerations from evolutionary biology, cognitive and developmental psychology, and artificial intelligence.

DOI
10.3390/systems4040032

Related papers

Quantum theory of the classical "black box"

Chris Fields

Human beings do not observe world from outside, but rather are fully embedded in it. The sciences, however, often give observer both a god's eye perspective and substantial a~priori knowledge. Motivated by W. Ross Ashby's statement, the theory of Black Box is merely theory of real objects or systems, when close attention is given to question, relating object and observer, about what information comes from object, and how it is obtained (Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956, p. 110), I develop here an alternate picture of world as a black box to which observer is coupled. Within this framework I prove purely-classical analogs of no-go theorems of quantum theory. Focussing on question of identifying macroscopic objects, such as laboratory apparatus or even other observers, I show that standard quantum formalism of superposition is required to adequately represent classical information that an observer can obtain. I relate these results to supporting considerations from evolutionary biology, cognitive and developmental psychology, and artificial intelligence.

•Nov 13, 2014•0 citations

THIS is the Observer–System Bridge

Freddy Brugmans

This paper introduces The Informative State (THIS) as the bridge between observer and system. This framework is designed to address the fundamental problem of how classical reality emerges from quantum mechanics. We propose that the physically irreducible coupling between an observer and a system, quantified by quantum mutual information across time, forms the bridge that explains the emergence of objective facts from subjective interactions. The participatory universe theory, also known as “It from Bit” and particularly associated with physicist John Wheeler, posits that acts of observation influence what is seen as real, suggesting that the universe remains indeterminate when there is no observer. Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation offers an alternative by stating that the observer is always part of the system, regardless of the nature of the observer; any entity that observes can fulfill this function. The THIS framework is introduced to represent the relationship between an observer and the observed in information extraction. The combined quantum state of the observer and the observed at any given time ensures that the observer actively contributes to the way classical information is acquired. The observed does not calculate the observation, the observer calculates what can be observed from an abstract separation between observer and observed. Wheeler assumes a constitutive role of observation in the production of reality, while our framework focuses on the active, ongoing, and quantifiable coupling between observer and system, where the observer’s informational boundaries determine what aspects of reality can be accessed. A property of a system becomes a ’fact’ for an observer when the correlation between the system’s state and the observer’s record is nearly perfect. We propose measurable criteria for THIS and outline a verification program using memory-update protocols and controlled decoherence. The paper presents an epistemological view on ontology and as such also discusses the possibilities of artificial intelligence to transcend human cognitive limits.

•May 31, 2026•0 citations

Observer-Participant Theory

Dion Fryson

The prevailing epistemological frameworks of the twentieth century positioned the human mind as a passive receptor of objective reality—a "mirror of nature" (Rorty, 1979) tasked with accurately reflecting an external world. Yet emerging syntheses between cognitive neuroscience, phenomenology, and quantum physics suggest a radical departure from this dualistic separation of observer and observed. This paper introduces the Observer-Participant Theory, a comprehensive theoretical framework that reconceptualizes the role of awareness in human experience. The central thesis posits that conscious engagement with mental phenomena constitutes an active, participatory process that inherently shapes, modulates, and co-creates the fabric of experienced reality (Schwartz et al., 2016). The Observer-Participant Theory represents a paradigmatic shift from a classical, Newtonian model of psychology—where mental states are viewed as deterministic outcomes of biological machinery—to a quantum-neurodynamic model. Here, consciousness is not a passive epiphenomenon but an active agent in the construction of subjective reality (Wallace, 2007). This paper argues that directing conscious attention toward internal or external phenomena is never a neutral measurement; rather, it constitutes an energetic intervention that influences the ontology of what is observed. Awareness operates not merely as a window through which reality is perceived, but as a dynamic force through which reality is continuously crafted, refined, and actualized (Pribram, 1991).

•May 25, 2025•0 citations

Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition)

G. Mahler

Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Jun 17, 2004•4 citations

Computers: Classical, Quantum and Others

Sergey P. Suprun, Anatoly P. Suprun

This volume elaborates upon functioning of a quantum computer and the analysis of mind phenomenon in a natural scientific paradigm. Many outstanding physicists - Bohr, Heisenberg et al.- considered that many aspects of quantum physics could be understood considering the laws of perception, linguistics and semiotics within the world's semiotic description. An analysis of would-be scientific theories and paradoxes connected with a number of unformulated statements regarding initial information is therefore presented. These, in turn, could be used to draw algorithms that generate a picture of reality in the human mind. The eBook also attempts to find out what is available to an observer from his/her standpoint (reference system), and from what theoretical standpoints that observation is developed. The initial point of this approach is recognizing that we are closed inside the semiotic system in which the "universe" can only be presented to our mind. Such semiotic restrictions for translation of knowledge in any field are considered. This book is intended as a resource for senior students and researchers in natural sciences, scientific philosophy and contemporary psychology.

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks•Apr 26, 2011•3 citations

The quantum physics of observers

Bruce Mills

The observer is herein studied as an aspect of laboratory physics. It is generally accepted that our status as observers is mediated by our material aspects: our body and brain. But, observers are typically equated with classical coordinate systems. An alternative, modelling the observer as a quantum entity, is considered. The corresponding transformations between two quantum observers affect the computed wavefunctions of other quantum entities in a physically meaningful manner.

Journal of Optics B Quantum and Semiclassical Optics•Aug 1, 2002•0 citations
Human beings do not observe the world from the outside, but rather are fully embedded in it. The sciences, however, often give the observer both a “god’s eye” perspective and substantial a priori knowledge. Motivated by W. Ross Ashby’s statement, “the theory of the Black Box is merely the theory of real objects or systems, when close attention is given to the question, relating object and observer, about what information comes from the object, and how it is obtained” (Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956, p. 110), I develop here an alternate picture of the world as a black box to which the observer is coupled. Within this framework I prove purely-classical analogs of the “no-go” theorems of quantum theory. Focussing on the question of identifying macroscopic objects, such as laboratory apparatus or even other observers, I show that the standard quantum formalism of superposition is required to adequately represent the classical information that an observer can obtain. I relate these results to supporting considerations from evolutionary biology, cognitive and developmental psychology, and artificial intelligence.
Human beings do not observe world from outside, but rather are fully embedded in it. The sciences, however, often give observer both a god's eye perspective and substantial a~priori knowledge. Motivated by W. Ross Ashby's statement, the theory of Black Box is merely theory of real objects or systems, when close attention is given to question, relating object and observer, about what information comes from object, and how it is obtained (Introduction to Cybernetics, 1956, p. 110), I develop here an alternate picture of world as a black box to which observer is coupled. Within this framework I prove purely-classical analogs of no-go theorems of quantum theory. Focussing on question of identifying macroscopic objects, such as laboratory apparatus or even other observers, I show that standard quantum formalism of superposition is required to adequately represent classical information that an observer can obtain. I relate these results to supporting considerations from evolutionary biology, cognitive and developmental psychology, and artificial intelligence.
This paper introduces The Informative State (THIS) as the bridge between observer and system. This framework is designed to address the fundamental problem of how classical reality emerges from quantum mechanics. We propose that the physically irreducible coupling between an observer and a system, quantified by quantum mutual information across time, forms the bridge that explains the emergence of objective facts from subjective interactions. The participatory universe theory, also known as “It from Bit” and particularly associated with physicist John Wheeler, posits that acts of observation influence what is seen as real, suggesting that the universe remains indeterminate when there is no observer. Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation offers an alternative by stating that the observer is always part of the system, regardless of the nature of the observer; any entity that observes can fulfill this function. The THIS framework is introduced to represent the relationship between an observer and the observed in information extraction. The combined quantum state of the observer and the observed at any given time ensures that the observer actively contributes to the way classical information is acquired. The observed does not calculate the observation, the observer calculates what can be observed from an abstract separation between observer and observed. Wheeler assumes a constitutive role of observation in the production of reality, while our framework focuses on the active, ongoing, and quantifiable coupling between observer and system, where the observer’s informational boundaries determine what aspects of reality can be accessed. A property of a system becomes a ’fact’ for an observer when the correlation between the system’s state and the observer’s record is nearly perfect. We propose measurable criteria for THIS and outline a verification program using memory-update protocols and controlled decoherence. The paper presents an epistemological view on ontology and as such also discusses the possibilities of artificial intelligence to transcend human cognitive limits.
The prevailing epistemological frameworks of the twentieth century positioned the human mind as a passive receptor of objective reality—a "mirror of nature" (Rorty, 1979) tasked with accurately reflecting an external world. Yet emerging syntheses between cognitive neuroscience, phenomenology, and quantum physics suggest a radical departure from this dualistic separation of observer and observed. This paper introduces the Observer-Participant Theory, a comprehensive theoretical framework that reconceptualizes the role of awareness in human experience. The central thesis posits that conscious engagement with mental phenomena constitutes an active, participatory process that inherently shapes, modulates, and co-creates the fabric of experienced reality (Schwartz et al., 2016). The Observer-Participant Theory represents a paradigmatic shift from a classical, Newtonian model of psychology—where mental states are viewed as deterministic outcomes of biological machinery—to a quantum-neurodynamic model. Here, consciousness is not a passive epiphenomenon but an active agent in the construction of subjective reality (Wallace, 2007). This paper argues that directing conscious attention toward internal or external phenomena is never a neutral measurement; rather, it constitutes an energetic intervention that influences the ontology of what is observed. Awareness operates not merely as a window through which reality is perceived, but as a dynamic force through which reality is continuously crafted, refined, and actualized (Pribram, 1991).
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
This volume elaborates upon functioning of a quantum computer and the analysis of mind phenomenon in a natural scientific paradigm. Many outstanding physicists - Bohr, Heisenberg et al.- considered that many aspects of quantum physics could be understood considering the laws of perception, linguistics and semiotics within the world's semiotic description. An analysis of would-be scientific theories and paradoxes connected with a number of unformulated statements regarding initial information is therefore presented. These, in turn, could be used to draw algorithms that generate a picture of reality in the human mind. The eBook also attempts to find out what is available to an observer from his/her standpoint (reference system), and from what theoretical standpoints that observation is developed. The initial point of this approach is recognizing that we are closed inside the semiotic system in which the "universe" can only be presented to our mind. Such semiotic restrictions for translation of knowledge in any field are considered. This book is intended as a resource for senior students and researchers in natural sciences, scientific philosophy and contemporary psychology.