Abstract Is it possible to encompass the full extent of the universe within a theory based on a finite set of first principles and inference rules? The r^ole of observers and observations in physics theories is considered here in the light of G¨odel’s incompleteness theorem. Physics theories are the sum-total that we – humans, scientists, physicists – can make in interpreting our observations of the universe. We are integral part of the universe, together with our observations, therefore acts of observation are also observables and should become part of the phenomena considered by the theory, especially in view of the fact that arbitrarily chosen modes of observations may essentially determine empirical results. Incompleteness arises in G¨odel’s theorem with self-referential propositions. Observations and interpretations are acts of referencing, and self-referencing occurs in physics whenever the observer is recognized as being part of the observed system. If self-reference appears in physics in simile to G¨odel’s theorem, then incompleteness seems unavoidable in physics. The article discusses observers and observations as referencing in physics, culminating with the understanding that they are hierarchically inter-related so that a universal physics theory cannot be complete.
Abstract Is it possible to encompass the full extent of the universe within a theory based on a finite set of first principles and inference rules? The r^ole of observers and observations in physics theories is considered here in the light of G¨odel’s incompleteness theorem. Physics theories are the sum-total that we – humans, scientists, physicists – can make in interpreting our observations of the universe. We are integral part of the universe, together with our observations, therefore acts of observation are also observables and should become part of the phenomena considered by the theory, especially in view of the fact that arbitrarily chosen modes of observations may essentially determine empirical results. Incompleteness arises in G¨odel’s theorem with self-referential propositions. Observations and interpretations are acts of referencing, and self-referencing occurs in physics whenever the observer is recognized as being part of the observed system. If self-reference appears in physics in simile to G¨odel’s theorem, then incompleteness seems unavoidable in physics. The article discusses observers and observations as referencing in physics, culminating with the understanding that they are hierarchically inter-related so that a universal physics theory cannot be complete.
The r\^{o}le of observers and observations in physics theories is considered in the light of G\{o}del's incompleteness theorem. Incompleteness arises in G\{o}del's theorem with self-referential propositions, when the system asks to define itself in its own terms. Self-referencing occurs in physics whenever the observer is recognized as being part of the observed system, so the acts of observation are also observables and should become part of the phenomena considered by the theory. This is emphasized by the fact that in many instances the same physical phenomenon may be viewed in more than one way, hence its interpretation depends on the mode of observation. Observations of observations imply a potentially endless hierarchy of levels of observations. Each higher level suggests a larger overview with more profound insight into the universe, empirically implying essentially new discoveries and realizations. New discoveries imply new first principles in the foundation of the theory, so the theory remains open and cannot be complete.
In 1929 Szilard pointed out that the physics of the observer may play a role in the analysis of experiments. The same year, Bohr pointed out that complementarity appears to arise naturally in psychology where both the objects of perception and the perceiving subject belong to 'our mental content'. Here we argue that the formalism of quantum theory can be derived from two related intuitive principles: (i) inference is a physical process performed by physical systems, observers, which are part of the experimental setup---this implies non-commutativity and imaginary-time quantum mechanics; (ii) experiments must be described from a first-person perspective---this leads to self-reference, complementarity, and real-time quantum dynamics. This approach sheds new light on the foundations of quantum theory and suggests fundamental equations in physics are typically of second order due to the physical nature of the observer. It also suggests some experimental conjectures: (i) the quantum of action could be understood as the result of the additional energy required to transition from unconscious to conscious perception; (ii) humans can observe a single photon of visible light; (iii) self-aware systems and the neural correlates of the self should be composed of two complementary sub-systems, much like the DNA molecule is composed of two strands---this may help explain the double-hemisphere architecture of the brain. Moreover, this approach may help bridge the gap between science and human experience. We discuss the potential implications of these ideas for the modern research programs on consciousness and contemplative science. As side results: (i) we show that message-passing algorithms and stochastic processes can be written in a quantum-like manner; (ii) we provide evidence that non-stoquasticity, a quantum computational resource, may be related to non-equilibrium phenomena.
In 1929 Szilard pointed out that the physics of the observer may play a role in the analysis of experiments. The same year, Bohr pointed out that complementarity appears to arise naturally in psychology where both the objects of perception and the perceiving subject belong to 'our mental content'. Here we argue that the formalism of quantum theory can be derived from two related intuitive principles: (i) inference is a physical process performed by physical systems, observers, which are part of the experimental setup---this implies non-commutativity and imaginary-time quantum mechanics; (ii) experiments must be described from a first-person perspective---this leads to self-reference, complementarity, and real-time quantum dynamics. This approach sheds new light on the foundations of quantum theory and suggests fundamental equations in physics are typically of second order due to the physical nature of the observer. It also suggests some experimental conjectures: (i) the quantum of action could be understood as the result of the additional energy required to transition from unconscious to conscious perception; (ii) humans can observe a single photon of visible light; (iii) self-aware systems and the neural correlates of the self should be composed of two complementary sub-systems, much like the DNA molecule is composed of two strands---this may help explain the double-hemisphere architecture of the brain. Moreover, this approach may help bridge the gap between science and human experience. We discuss the potential implications of these ideas for the modern research programs on consciousness and contemplative science. As side results: (i) we show that message-passing algorithms and stochastic processes can be written in a quantum-like manner; (ii) we provide evidence that non-stoquasticity, a quantum computational resource, may be related to non-equilibrium phenomena.
However, the observations encompassed by classical physics excludes the observer from the physical reality, yet the deep-down understandung of nature --{\it the quantum theory}-- can not avoid the intrusion of observer into the measurement process. Indeed, the quantum physics experiments have knocked the door of a new paradigm: in which science of consciousness is an important axiom. In the present work, it is argued --by taking into account of the views of learned scientists and philosophers-- that modern science is incomplete and lacking something in the basic understanding of nature \cite{r}. Classical physics has failed to explain the dynamics of the microscopic particles, eventhough modern scientific researches are based upon the prejudice posed by classical physics: keeping the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer --human mind. One should not forget that human-being is a part of nature and human mind is an essential component of our observations. Basically, it is the observer --the consciousness-- which makes perception possible. The working of human mind must be included in our scientific theories. In fact, human free will is an illusion and nothing in the entire universe (with life) lies outside the domain of science and determinism.
Introduction Throughout this book we have commented on the need to have a wider vision of physics as more than merely developing and solving equations of motion for states of systems under observation (SUOs). It is our premise that any attempt to discuss time needs to address issues such as the status of observers, apparatus, and suchlike, relative to those states of SUOs. This echoes the following quote from Wheeler: Stronger than the anthropic principle is what I might call the participatory principle. According to it we could not even imagine a universe that did not somewhere and for some stretch of time contain observers because the very building materials of the universe are these acts of observer participancy. You wouldn't have the stuff out of which to build the universe otherwise. This participatory principle takes for its foundation the absolutely central point of the quantum: No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed (or registered) phenomenon. (Wheeler, 1979) We agree with Wheeler to this extent: there seems little, if any, point in speculating about truly unobservable parts of the Universe. If, however, there is a possibility that physical signals or effects from currently unobserved parts of the Universe might one day reach us, then that would in essence make those parts observable, albeit indirectly, and therefore suitable for theoretical analysis and speculation.
This work introduces the foundations of an observer-dependent informational theory of physics.Rather than proposing a closed or final model, the paper establishes the conceptual and methodological architecture of a unified research program in which physical phenomena are described through observer-accessible informational states. The theory treats the observer as an integral component of physical description, rather than as an external disturbance or purely abstract entity.Information is defined operationally, as a relational construct linking observation, structure, and temporal coherence. The paper does not present new mathematical derivations.Instead, it provides a stable foundational framework that unifies a set of modular technical works, each addressing specific physical, cognitive, or interpretative problems. Mathematical formulations, empirical models, and testable predictions are delegated to the corresponding modular papers, allowing the theory to evolve through falsification and refinement without requiring repeated foundational revision. This contribution is intended as a foundational reference for an evolving observer-centered informational approach to physics.